DECISION

 

Jingjing Jiang v. FENG WANG

Claim Number: FA2605002220737

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Jingjing Jiang ("Complainant"), represented by Jingjing Jiang, China. Respondent is FENG WANG ("Respondent"), China.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <675.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.

 

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.

 

Lars Karnøe as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on May 12, 2026; Forum received payment on May 12, 2026.

 

On May 12, 2026, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <675.com> domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GoDaddy.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, LLC 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 May 13, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of June 2, 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@675.com. Also on May 13, 2026, the 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.

 

A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on June 1, 2026.

 

On June 2, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Lars Karnøe 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.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant is the original owner of the domain name <675.com>.

The Complainant began using the domain name for commercial purposes in June 2021.

 

B. Respondent

Complainant appears to rely on prior ownership of <675.com>, alleged prior DNS changes, alleged commercial use, and a third-party communication. Those allegations, even if accepted, do not establish trademark rights in the number "675." Prior ownership of a domain name is not the same as trademark rights.

 

Complainant has provided no trademark registration, no evidence of common-law trademark rights, no proof of secondary meaning, no advertising records, no sales records, no customer recognition evidence, and no evidence that consumers identify "675" as a source indicator for Complainant's goods or services.

 

The disputed domain name consists of the three-digit number "675" plus the generic top-level domain ".com." A short numeric domain is inherently general and commercially valuable as a numeric domain; it is not inherently distinctive of Complainant. Because Complainant has not established trademark or service mark rights, the Complaint fails at the

first UDRP element.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant has not provided any documentation evidencing, i.e. copies of trademark registration certificates, that the Complainant holds trademark or service mark rights in the digits "675".

 

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.

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

The Complainant has not provided any documentation or evidence supporting that the Complainant holds trademark or service mark rights in the digits / mark "675" or "675.com". The registration and use of a domain name, in this case <675.com>, does not in itself document trademark or service mark rights.

 

Already because the Complainant has not proven any trademark or service mark rights, the domain name registered by the Respondent can not be considered identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights, The Complainant therefore fails to fulfill the requirements under the Policy Paragraph 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

As the Complainant has failed to fulfill the requirements under the Policy Paragraph 4(a)(i), and as all three requirements must be fulfilled the Panel will not specifically consider whether Policy Paragraph 4(a)(ii) is fulfilled.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

As the Complainant has failed to fulfill the requirements under the Policy Paragraph 4(a)(i), and as all three requirements must be fulfilled the Panel will not specifically consider whether Policy Paragraph 4(a)(iii) is fulfilled.

 

REVERSE DOMAIN NAME HIJACKING

The Complainant has no registered trademark or service mark rights in the disputed domain name and has not in any other way tried to support or evidence trademark or service mark rights in the disputed domain name. The Complainant must have been aware of this and the requirements under the Policy when filing the Complaint.

 

The Complainant admits to failing in paying for the renewal of the domain name and having lost ownership in the domain name due to GoDaddy policies. Whether GoDaddy has adhered to their policies towards the Complainant or not is not a question that can be raised by the Complainant against the Respondent in UDRP proceedings.

 

The Complainant was in bad faith of the above when filing the complaint, trying to abuse the UDRP administrative process as a remedy to get the domain name back, in spite of Complainant's failed payment and lack of trademark and/or service mark rights, and the Panel therefore find the complaint has been brought as an attempt of reverse domain name hijacking under the Rules in Paragraph 15(e).

 

DECISION

Having not established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be DENIED.

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <675.com> domain name REMAIN WITH Respondent.

 

 

 

 

Lars Karnøe, Panelist

Dated: June 12, 2026