DECISION

 

Midjourney, Inc. v. ni chao han / sui yang xian ni chao han dian shang wang dian ge ti gong shang hu

Claim Number: FA2602002205873

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Midjourney, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Judd Lauter of Cooley LLP, District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is ni chao han / sui yang xian ni chao han dian shang wang dian ge ti gong shang hu ("Respondent"), China.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <mjcn-midjourney.com>, registered with Alibaba Cloud Computing Ltd. d/b/a HiChina (www.net.cn).

 

PANEL

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

 

James Bridgeman SC as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on February 17, 2026; Forum received payment on February 17, 2026.

 

On February 24, 2026, Alibaba Cloud Computing Ltd. d/b/a HiChina (www.net.cn) confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <mjcn-midjourney.com> domain name is registered with Alibaba Cloud Computing Ltd. d/b/a HiChina (www.net.cn) and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. 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 March 3, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Chinese and English Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 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@mjcn-midjourney.com. Also on March 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 March 24, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed James Bridgeman SC as Panelist.

 

On March 25, 2026, the Panel issued Procedural Order No. 1, pursuant to Rule 12, requesting a certified translation into the into the English language of the Chinese language content of a webpage exhibited in an annex to the Complaint. Complainant was required to submit additional information on or before March 30, 2026 and Respondent was granted leave to make submissions on said certified translation not later than four days following receipt thereof from Complainant. Complainant timely submitted said certified translation on March 30, 2026 and Respondent filed no timely submissions on same.

 

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 disputed domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PRELIMINARY ISSUE: LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDING

This Panel notes that the Rules provide

"10. General Powers of the Panel

(a)                      The Panel shall conduct the administrative proceeding in such manner as it considers appropriate in accordance with the Policy and these Rules.

(b)        In all cases, the Panel shall ensure that the Parties are treated with equality and that each Party is given a fair opportunity to present its case.

(c)         The Panel shall ensure that the administrative proceeding takes place with due expedition. It may, at the request of a Party or on its own motion, extend, in exceptional cases, a period of time fixed by these Rules or by the Panel.

(d)         The Panel shall determine the admissibility, relevance, materiality and weight of the evidence.

 

11.        Language of Proceedings

(a) Unless otherwise agreed by the Parties, or specified otherwise in the Registration Agreement, the language of the administrative proceeding shall be the language of the Registration Agreement, subject to the authority of the Panel to determine otherwise, having regard to the circumstances of the administrative proceeding."

 

The record shows that the language of the registration agreement is Chinese. The website to which the disputed domain name resolves is partially in Chinese and partially in the English language. 

 

Unfortunately, Complaint did not provide any translation of the Chinese elements of the Respondent's website with the Complaint, however in view of the strength of the Complainant's case, including the content of the English language pages of Respondent's website, the Panel issued Procedural Order No. 1 requesting certified translations of the Chinese language content of Respondent's website.

 

The certified translations were timely provided by Complainant and notwithstanding that it was given the opportunity to comment, no timely submissions were received from Respondent.

 

The translations show that the Chinese language pages are almost identical in content to the English language pages. Most importantly the Chinese language translations show that the banner on Respondent's website states "Officially licensed Midjourney game from China".

 

The content of the website shows that Respondent is proficient in both English and Chinese, and furthermore that Respondent is purporting to pass itself off as a licensee of Complainant in the Chinese market.

 

In the above circumstances, notwithstanding that the language of the Registration Agreement of the disputed domain name is Chinese, this Panel FINDS that neither Party would be prejudiced if this proceeding is conducted in the English language, while Complainant would be further inconvenienced and prejudiced if the proceedings were to progress in the language of the Registration Agreement.

 

Having considered the submissions of Complainant, and the certified translations of the Chinese language content of Respondent's website, exercising his discretion pursuant to Rule 11(a), applying the principles set out in the Rules and in particular Rule 10(a)-(c), and having regard to the circumstances of the administrative proceeding this Panel FINDS and DIRECTS that in the interest of procedural fairness this Complaint shall proceed in the English language.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant claims rights in the MIDJOURNEY mark established by its ownership of the portfolio of registered trademarks described below, and extensive use of the mark on its platform providing generative AI services since 2022.

 

Complainant submits that after the launch of the public beta version of the MIDJOURNEY platform in early July 2022, Complainant quickly earned widespread acclaim as a leader in generative AI, and its user base grew dramatically.

 

Complainant submits that as of the filing of this Complaint, its server has nearly 19.5 million members, with typically well over a million members online at any given time.

 

Complainant firstly alleges that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the MIDJOURNEY mark in which Complainant claims rights.

 

The disputed domain name consists of the MIDJOURNEY mark in combination with the letters "MJCN". Complainant argues that it is well established that a domain name at issue is nearly identical or confusingly similar to a complainant's mark when it fully incorporates the mark relied upon by the complainant. See PepsiCo. Inc. v. PEPSI SRL, D2003-0696 (WIPO Oct. 28, 2003) (holding pepsiadventure.net, pepsitennis.com, and others confusingly similar to complainant's PEPSI mark since they "incorporate[ed the] trademark in its entirety").

 

Complainant argues that in this proceeding the disputed domain name consists of the MIDJOURNEY mark combined with the letters "MJCN", which may be an abbreviation for "Midjourney China", and is therefore confusingly similar to the MIDJOURNEY mark. See Midjourney, Inc. v. Midjourney Group / The Midjourney AI, FA 2103820 (Forum July 30, 2024) (explaining that "it is well-settled under the Policy that minor changes to a trademark… will still lead to a finding of confusing similarity").

 

Secondly Complainant alleges that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, arguing that Respondent

·       Respondent is not commonly known as the disputed domain name or any name containing Complainant's MIDJOURNEY mark;

·       the WHOIS information for the disputed domain name makes no mention of Respondent's use of the disputed domain name or the MIDJOURNEY mark as Respondent's name or nickname; see Popular Enterprises, LLC v. Sung-a Jang, FA 811921 (Forum Nov. 16, 2006) ("Respondent's WHOIS information does not suggest that [r]espondent is commonly known by the <ntester.com> domain name.");

·       Complainant has not authorized or licensed Respondent to use any of its trademarks in any way;

·       as shown in the screen captures exhibited in an annex to the Complaint, the disputed domain name resolves to a website that purports to provide competitive generative AI services under Complainant's MIDJOURNEY mark;

·       the unlicensed, unauthorized use of the disputed domain name which incorporates Complainant's trademark is strong evidence that a Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name at issue; see, e.g., Time Warner Inc. v. MLM Capital LLC d/b/a Domains, FA 1076561 (Forum Oct. 26, 2007).

·       Respondent cannot legitimately claim to be offering bona fide services; and

·       Respondent's transparent effort to impersonate Complainant demonstrates a lack of legitimate right or interest in the disputed domain name.

 

Thirdly Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

 

Complainant argues that the distinctive and unique qualities of the MIDJOURNEY mark, which is a coined term, and was adopted by Complainant long before the registration of the disputed domain name, render it wholly implausible that Respondent created the disputed domain name independently.

 

Complainant adds that Respondent demonstrably registered the disputed domain name with the MIDJOURNEY mark in mind; and in this regard Complainant refers to the decision of the panel in Immigration Equality v. Brent, FA 1103571 (Forum Jan. 11, 2008) ("That Respondent proceeded to register a domain name identical to, and with prior knowledge of Complainant's mark is sufficient to prove bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).").

 

Given Respondent's registration of disputed domain name which is effectively identical to Complainant's well-known and distinctive MIDJOURNEY mark, it is impossible to conceive of any potential legitimate use of the disputed domain name.

 

As such, Complainant argues that the disputed domain name is being used in bad faith. See, e.g., Ferrari S.p.A. v. Joohee, WIPO Case D2003-0882 (WIPO Dec. 18, 2003) ("[r]espondent has appropriated a trademark having a strong reputation and widely known. The Panel finds it implausible that Respondent was unaware of Complainant's trademark…[r]espondent has provided no evidence or suggestion of a possible legitimate use…Thus, in the words of Telstra, it is not possible to conceive of any plausible actual or contemplated active use of the domain name by the [r]espondent that would not be illegitimate, such as passing off, or an infringement of consumer protection legislation, or an infringement of the Complainant's rights under trademark law.").

 

Furthermore, Complainant argues that where, as in the present proceeding, a domain name at issue is "so obviously connected" with a complainant and its products, "its very use by someone with no connection with the products suggests opportunistic bad faith…" as held by the panel in Parfums Christian Dior v. Quintas, D2000-0226 (WIPO May 17, 2000).

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant is a provider of generative AI services using the MIDJOURNEY mark for which it holds a portfolio of registrations including the following:

·       United States registered service mark, MIDJOURNEY, registration number 7358148, registered on the Principal Register on April 16, 2024 for services in international classes 41, 42 and 45;

·       European Union Trade Mark (EUTM) MIDJOURNEY, registration number 018850366, registered on September 7, 2023 for goods and services in classes 9, 16, 25, 35, 38, 41, 42 and 45;

·       Hong Kong registered trademark MIDJOURNEY, registration number 306198599, registered on March 20, 2023 for goods and services in classes 9, 16, 25, 35, 38, 41, 42 and 45.

 

The disputed domain name was registered on September 10, 2025, and resolves to a website in the English and Chinese languages, purporting to offer gambling services as a licensee of Complainant, in circumstances where Complainant denies that it has any connection with Respondent and has never granted a license to Respondent to use its MIDJOURNEY mark.

 

There is no information available about Respondent except for that provided in the Complaint as amended, the Registrar's WhoIs and the information provided by the Registrar in response to the request by Forum for details of the registration of the disputed domain name for the purposes of this proceeding.

 

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 provided uncontested evidence that it owns and uses the MIDJOURNEY trademark and service mark in connection with its business providing generative AI services.

 

The disputed domain name <mjcn-midjourney.com> is a combination of Complainant's MIDJOURNEY mark, the letters "mcjn", a hyphen and the generic Top Level Domain extension <.com>.

 

It is well established that, as in the presence proceeding, where a domain name at issue contains the complainant's trademark in its entirety it is normally sufficient to establish confusing similarity.

 

In the present proceedings the letters "mcjn" accompany Complainant's trademark to form the disputed domain name. Complainant has credibly argued that those letters signify the MIDJOURNEY name and mark and the frequently used "cn" designation for China. 

 

The Panel finds that neither the letters "mcjn", nor the letters "cn" prevent a finding that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark.

 

The hyphen has no significance in context, and in the context of the present Complaint, the gTLD extension may be ignored as it would be considered by Internet users to be a technical requirement for a domain name.

 

This Panel finds therefore that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the MIDJOURNEY mark in which Complainant has rights and Complainant has therefore succeeded in the first element of the test in Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant has made out a prima facie case that Respondent has no rights legitimate interests in the disputed domain name as set out in Complainant's detailed submissions above.

 

In particular, the uncontested evidence is that Respondent purports to offer its services on the website to which the disputed domain name as a licensee of Complainant and Complainant has denied that it ever granted Respondent a license and states that it has no connection whatsoever with Respondent.

 

It is well established that once a complainant makes out a prima facie case that a respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name at issue, the burden of production shifts to the respondent to prove its rights or legitimate interests.

 

Respondent has failed to discharge that burden and therefore this Panel must find that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

 

Complainant has therefore succeeded in the second element of the test in Policy paragraph 4(a)(ii).

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

MIDJOURNEY is a distinctive name and mark in the context of the provision of generative AI services.

 

Complainant launched the public beta version of its MIDJOURNEY platform in early July 2022 and has shown in the exhibits annexed to the Complaint that it first registered the mark 2023 in the EU and Hong Kong.

 

It is most improbable that the registrant of the disputed domain name was unaware of Complainant and its platform when the disputed domain name was chosen and registered on September 10, 2025. On that date Complainant. The fact that the exhibits to the Complaint show that Respondent purports to operate as a licensee of Complainant support this finding.

 

There appears to be no plausible reason for registering or using the disputed domain name other than to create an association with the Complainant and the goodwill established by its generative AI platform.

 

The evidence shows that Respondent proceeded to establish a bilingual Chinese and English language website which purports to offer generic AI services under license from Complainant.

 

On the balance of probabilities, therefore, this Panel finds that the disputed domain name was in fact chosen and registered with the Complainant's mark in mind with the intention of taking predatory advantage of the Complainant's rights and goodwill in the MIDJOURNEY mark.

 

Complainant has submitted screen captures of the website to which the disputed domain name resolves which are exhibited in an annex to the Complaint. Complainant has also submitted a certified translation of the Chinese language elements of Respondent's website.

 

The screen captures show that Respondent is purporting to operate under license from Complainant. The services which Respondent purports to offer are "…AI-related technical services and products Online platforms and applications Data analysis and processing services Technical consulting and support services…"

On the balance of probabilities such use is intended to attract and confuse Internet users who are seeking the Complainant's website and cause them to divert their Internet traffic and misdirect it to the Respondent's website.

 

Such use of the MIDJOURNEY mark by Respondent is on the balance of probabilities intended to create an initial interest confusion as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent's website; and the use of Complainant's trademark within the address of Respondent's website constitutes use in bad faith for the purposes of the Policy.

 

As this Panel has found that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith, the Complainant has succeeded in the third element of the test in Policy paragraph 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 <mjcn-midjourney.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

________________________________________

 

James Bridgeman SC, Panelist

Dated: April 5, 2026