DECISION

 

Avnet Inc. v. fu xue hua / fu an guo ji xin xi ji shu shen zhen you xian gong si

Claim Number: FA2601002202176

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Avnet Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Jennifer A. Van Kirk of Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP, Arizona, USA. Respondent is fu xue hua / fu an guo ji xin xi ji shu shen zhen you xian gong si ("Respondent"), China.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES 

The domain names at issue are <avnat-jp.com> and <avnat-kr.com> (collectively "Domain Names"), registered with Alibaba Cloud Computing Ltd. d/b/a HiChina (www.net.cn).

 

PANEL

The undersigned certifies that they have acted independently and impartially and to the best of their knowledge have no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.

 

Nicholas J.T. Smith as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on January 28, 2026; Forum received payment on January 28, 2026.

 

On January 29, 2026, Alibaba Cloud Computing Ltd. d/b/a HiChina (www.net.cn) confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <avnat-jp.com> and <avnat-kr.com> domain names are registered with Alibaba Cloud Computing Ltd. d/b/a HiChina (www.net.cn) and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Alibaba Cloud Computing Ltd. d/b/a HiChina (www.net.cn) has verified that Respondent is bound by the Alibaba Cloud Computing Ltd. d/b/a HiChina (www.net.cn) registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN's Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy").

 

On February 3, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Chinese and English Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 23, 2026 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@avnat-jp.com, postmaster@avnat-kr.com. Also on February 3, 2026, the Chinese and English Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the e-mail addresses served and the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to Respondent via post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts.

 

Having received no response from Respondent, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default in Chinese and English.

 

On February 24, 2026 pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Nicholas J.T. Smith as Panelist.

 

Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") "to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent" through submission of Electronic and Written Notices, as defined in Rule 1 and Rule 2.  Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the Domain Names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PRELIMINARY ISSUE: LANGUAGE OF PROCEEDING

The language of the registration agreements for the Domain Names is Chinese.  The Complaint is in English and Complainant requests that pursuant to UDRP Rule 11(a) the language of the proceeding be English.  

 

It is established practice to take UDRP Rules 10(b) and (c) into consideration for the purpose of determining the language of the proceeding to ensure fairness and justice to both parties.  Factors which previous panels have seen as particularly compelling are: WHOIS information which establishes Respondent in a country which would demonstrate familiarity with the English language, filing of a trademark registration with an entity which shows an understanding of the English language, and any evidence (or lack thereof) exhibiting Respondent's understanding of the language requested by Complainant.  See The Argento Wine Company Limited v. Argento Beijing Trading Company, D2009-0610 (WIPO July 1, 2009) (panel exercising discretion in deciding that the language of the proceedings advance in English, contrary to the Registration Agreement, based on evidence that respondent has command of the language).  Further, the Panel may weigh the relative time and expense in enforcing the Chinese language agreement, which would result in prejudice toward either party.  See Finter Bank Zurich v. Shumin Peng, D2006-0432 (WIPO June 12, 2006) (deciding that the proceeding should be in English, stating, "It is important that the language finally decided by the Panel for the proceeding is not prejudicial to either one of the parties in his or her ability to articulate the arguments for the case.") and Zappos.com, Inc. v. Zufu aka Huahaotrade, D2008-1191 (WIPO Oct. 15, 2008) (holding that proceedings could be conducted in English even though the registration agreement was in Chinese where "the disputed domain resolves to a website [that] is exclusively in English, from which can be reasonably presumed that the Respondent has the ability to communicate in English in order to conduct his business over the website in English").

 

Pursuant to UDRP Rule 11(a), the Panel finds that persuasive evidence has been adduced by Complainant to suggest the likely possibility that the Respondent is conversant and proficient in the English language.  Each of the Domain Names resolve to essentially identical websites ("Respondent's Websites") that contain links to social media profiles on Facebook and LinkedIn, both of which are almost entirely in English and contain multiple posts in English.  Furthermore, the Respondent has not participated in this case nor made any request that the proceeding continue in Chinese (noting that the language on the Respondent's Websites is Japanese and Korean respectively).  After considering the circumstances of the present case, the Panel decides that the proceeding should be continued in the English language.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant is an American electronics distributor that distributes electronic products under the AVNET mark. Complainant has rights in the AVNET mark through Complainant's registration of the mark with multiple international government agencies, including the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") (e.g. Reg. No. 1,481,121, registered on March 15, 1988). Respondent's <avnat-jp.com> and <avnat-kr.com> domain names are identical or confusingly similar to Complainant's AVNET mark as they merely add a geographic abbreviation and the ".com" generic top-level-domain ("gTLD") to the AVNET mark.

 

Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names. Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Names, nor has Respondent been authorized by Complainant to use the AVNET mark. Respondent has not used the Domain Names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services as Respondent uses the Domain Names for the Respondent's Websites where the Respondent's passes off as Complainant by offering competing electronic products for sale under the Complainant's AVNET Mark and also makes multiple references to being associated with or having a corporate relationship with the Complainant on the social media profiles linked to the Respondent's Websites.  

 

Respondent registered and uses the <avnat-jp.com> and <avnat-kr.com> domain names in bad faith. The Respondent's Websites disrupt the Complainant's business by passing off as Complainant while offering to sell unauthorized products in competition with Complainant. Additionally, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights to the AVNET mark prior to registering the Domain Names based on the content of the Respondent's Websites and related social media pages.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant holds trademark rights for the AVNET mark.  Each of the Domain Names is confusingly similar to Complainant's AVNET mark.  Complainant has established that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names and that Respondent registered and has used the Domain Names in bad faith.

 

DISCUSSION

Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable."

 

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred:

 

(1)       the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and

(2)       Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and

(3)       the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

 

In view of Respondent's failure to submit a response, the Panel shall decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant's undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(f), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and draw such inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules.  The Panel is entitled to accept all reasonable allegations set forth in a complaint; however, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory or unsubstantiated arguments.  See WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 at ¶ 4.3; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) ("Because Complainant did not produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations [. . .] the Panel finds it appropriate to dismiss the Complaint").

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

Complainant has rights in the AVNET mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through its registration of the mark with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 1,481,121, registered on March 15, 1988). Registration of a mark with a nation's trademark agency is generally sufficient to demonstrate rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Glashütter Uhrenbetrieb GmbH v. li zilin / QQ869292929, FA 1575562 (Forum Sept. 23, 2014) (holding, "Trademark registrations with a governmental authority are sufficient to prove rights in a mark pursuant to Policy ¶4(a)(i)").

 

The Panel finds that <avnat-jp.com> and <avnat-kr.com> are confusingly similar to the AVNET mark as they each wholly incorporate the AVNET mark while adding a geographical abbreviation and a gTLD. Adding a generic or geographical term and a gTLD to a mark fails to sufficiently distinguish a disputed domain name from a mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See  Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) ("Where a relevant trademark is recognisable within a disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element."); see also Dell Inc. v. SNAB Corporation, FA 1785051 (Forum May 30, 2018) (finding the inclusion of a geographic term did not distinguish the domain name and increased possible confusion, as "[t]he geographic term "hyderabad" is also suggestive of Complainant as Complainant has corporate offices in Hyderabad, India."); see also Trip Network Inc. v. Alviera, FA 914943 (Forum Mar. 27, 2007) (finding top-level domains are irrelevant for purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis).

 

The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant alleges that Respondent holds no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names. In order for Complainant to succeed under this element, it must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the Domain Names under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), and then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm't Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006) and AOL LLC v. Gerberg, FA 780200 (Forum Sept. 25, 2006) ("Complainant must first make a prima facie showing that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interest in the subject domain names, which burden is light. If Complainant satisfies its burden, then the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain names."). The Panel holds that Complainant has made out a prima facie case.

 

Complainant asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names as Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Names, nor has Complainant authorized Respondent to use the AVNET mark. Respondent has no relationship, affiliation, connection, endorsement or association with Complainant. WHOIS information can help support a finding that a respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, especially where a privacy service has been engaged. See State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Dale Anderson, FA 1613011 (Forum May 21, 2015) (concluding that because the WHOIS record lists "Dale Anderson" as the registrant of the disputed domain name, the respondent was not commonly known by the <statefarmforum.com> domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)); see also Kohler Co. v. Privacy Service, FA 1621573 (Forum July 2, 2015) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) where "Privacy Service" was listed as the registrant of the disputed domain name).  The WHOIS information of record lists "fu xue hua / fu an guo ji xin xi ji shu shen zhen you xian gong si" as the registrant of record. Coupled with Complainant's unrebutted assertions as to absence of any affiliation or authorization between the parties, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Names in accordance with Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).

 

The Domain Names resolve to the Respondent's Websites which, through the reproduction of the AVNET Mark and reference to Complainant in the social media pages linked to from the Respondent's Websites, pass themselves off as official websites of the Complainant (or related entities of the Complainant) for the purpose of selling unauthorized or competing versions of Complainant's goods, in direct competition with the Complainant's merchandise. The use of a confusingly similar domain name to resolve to a webpage that directly offers unauthorized versions of a complainant's goods does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use; indeed it provides a false impression that the Respondent is affiliated with or authorized by Complainant. See BALENCIAGA SA v. ling lin, FA 1768542 (Forum Feb. 16, 2018) ("The disputed domain names incorporate Complainant's registered mark, and are being used for websites that prominently display Complainant's mark and logo, along with apparent images of Complainant's products, offering them for sale at discounted prices. The sites do not disclaim any connection with Complainant, and in fact seem to be designed to create an appearance of such a connection. Such use does not give rise to rights or legitimate interests."). See also Am. Int'l Group, Inc. v. Busby, FA 156251 (Forum May 30, 2003) (finding that the respondent attempts to pass itself off as the complainant online, which is blatant unauthorized use of the complainant's mark and is evidence that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name).

 

The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

The Panel finds on the balance of probabilities that, at the time of registration of the Domain Names (July 19, 2024), Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's AVNET mark since the Respondent's social media pages linked to the Respondent's Websites make repeated and incorrect claims of a relationship between the Respondent and the Complaint. Furthermore, there is no obvious explanation, nor has one been provided, for an entity to register two domain names consisting of the AVNET mark and a geographical term and use them for websites selling electronic products in direct competition with the Complainant under the AVNET mark other than to take advantage of Complainant's reputation in the AVNET mark. In the absence of rights or legitimate interests of its own this demonstrates registration in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

 

The Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the Domain Names in bad faith to create confusion with Complainant's AVNET mark for commercial gain by using the confusingly similar Domain Names to resolve to websites that, through the use of the AVNET mark, pass off as official websites of Complainant and offer unauthorized versions of Complainant's products in direct competition with the Complainant's products.  Using a confusingly similar domain name to trade upon the goodwill of a complainant can evince bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Xylem Inc. and Xylem IP Holdings LLC v. YinSi BaoHu YiKaiQi, FA 1612750 (Forum May 13, 2015) ("The Panel agrees that Respondent's use of the website to display products similar to Complainant's, imputes intent to attract Internet users for commercial gain, and finds bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)."). See also See Bittrex, Inc. v. Wuxi Yilian LLC, FA 1760517 (Forum Dec. 27, 2017) (finding bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where "Respondent registered and uses the <lbittrex.com> domain name in bad faith by directing Internet users to a website that mimics Complainant's own website in order to confuse users into believing that Respondent is Complainant or is otherwise affiliated or associated with Complainant.").

 

The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

 

DECISION

Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <avnat-jp.com> and <avnat-kr.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Nicholas J.T. Smith, Panelist

Dated: February 24, 2026