DECISION

 

Consumer Technology Association v. Quan Yu Hui Zhan He Nan Ji Tuan You Xian Gong Si / Zhang Bao Zhou

Claim Number: FA2606002225664

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Consumer Technology Association ("Complainant"), represented by Matthew J. Cavanagh of McDonald Hopkins LLC, Ohio, USA. Respondent is Quan Yu Hui Zhan He Nan Ji Tuan You Xian Gong Si / Zhang Bao Zhou ("Respondent"), China.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <ces.ink>, registered with DNSPod, Inc.

 

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.

 

Richard Hill as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on June 5, 2026; Forum received payment on June 5, 2026.

 

On June 8, 2026, DNSPod, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <ces.ink> domain name is registered with DNSPod, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name.  DNSPod, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the DNSPod, Inc. 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 June 15, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint in English and Chinese, setting a deadline of July 6, 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@ces.ink. Also on June 15, 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.

 

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

 

On July 8, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a one-member Panel, Forum appointed Richard Hill 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 name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PRELIMINARY ISSUE: LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDING

Prior to discussing the three elements of the Policy, the Panel must decide on the language of the proceedings. The Registration Agreement is written in S Chinese, thereby making the language of the proceedings Chinese.

 

Pursuant to UDRP Rule 11(a), the Panel has the authority to determine a different language for the proceedings, having regard to the circumstances of the case. 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. Pursuant to Rule 10(b), Respondent must be given a fair opportunity to present its case. Pursuant to Rule 10(c), 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.").

 

In the present case, Respondent has received the Notice and Commencement Notification in Chinese and has chosen not to respond to the Complaint; the resolving website contains English text, including Respondent's translation of the name of Complainant's former subsidiary. Pursuant to Rule 11(a), having regard to the circumstances of the case, the Panel determines that fairness and justice to both parties, and due expedition, are best satisfied by conducting the remainder of the proceedings in English. See H-D U.S.A., LLC v. Yoshihiro Nakazawa, FA 1736477 (Forum July 21, 2017); see also UBS AG v. ratzel laura, FA 1735687 (Forum July 14, 2017).

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant states that it is a globally renowned trade association in the consumer technology industry, with more than 1,200 member companies, including BMW, Mercedes Benz, Google, Apple, Amazon, Hisense, Sony, Samsung, LG and Meta and many other industry leaders. Complainant promotes the growth of the consumer electronics industry by organizing large-scale exhibitions, conducting market research, and providing related services. Complainant held its first International Consumer Electronics Show (the "CES") in June 1967 in New York City, with 14 participating companies including LG, Motorola, and Philips. Since then, Complainant has held the CES annually in Las Vegas, Nevada, and has actively promoted the CES show internationally, including in China and other Asian countries. Complainant also held five CES ASIA exhibitions in China from 2015 to 2019. Today, CES is the world's largest and most influential consumer technology event, bringing together leading manufacturers and innovators. The 2026 CES featured more than 4,100 exhibitors and over 148,000 attendees. Complainant has promoted and used the CES mark extensively in the Asian market at least in the following ways: (A) planning and operating five annual CES ASIA exhibitions in Shanghai from 2015 until 2019 through its wholly-owned subsidiary, CES (Shanghai) Exhibition Co., Ltd. (Official Chinese Name: 赛逸（上海）会展有限公司, the "original CES company"), with plans to resume the Asia-based event in the near future; (B) promoting its annual Las Vegas CES show throughout Asia via the <ces.tech> website, press releases, print advertisements, brochures, press conferences in Korea and Tokyo, and other targeted marketing; (C) providing CES-branded services to its Asia-based members and clients, including current notable members Sony, Panasonic, and Hisense; (D) supporting numerous Asian clients that exhibit annually at the Las Vegas CES, such as Samsung, LG, Sony, and Panasonic; and (E) sending representatives to Korea, Tokyo, Hong Kong, and India in 2026 and prior years to meet with current and prospective exhibitors and attendees. These efforts have produced more than 175 corporate members in Asia, approximately 450 members with parents or subsidiaries in China, Hong Kong, and Taiwan, and approximately 2,296 exhibitors from Asia at the 2026 CES show in Las Vegas (including over 1,000 exhibitors from Mainland China). Complainant asserts rights in the mark CES through its registration in Australia in 1996. The mark is registered elsewhere around the world.

 

Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its CES mark because it incorporates the mark in its entirety, merely adding the ".ink" generic top-level domain ("gTLD").

 

According to Complainant, Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name since Respondent is not licensed or authorized to use Complainant's mark and is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Respondent does not use the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, the resolving website displays Complainant's mark and logo, and falsely portrays itself as an official CES-branded site. The website promotes a purported "CES ASIA" exhibition in Beijing, China, purportedly scheduled for June 10-12, 2026. Complainant is not hosting any such event and has not authorized Respondent to use the CES ASIA mark (or any other CES mark) in connection with exhibitions or related services. Respondent's actions constitute a deliberate scheme to deceive consumers and industry participants into believing that its website and the promoted "CES ASIA" event and organization are affiliated with Complainant and are a legitimate continuation or restart of Complainant's prior CES ASIA exhibitions. Through this deception, Respondent seeks to induce exhibitors and attendees to pay registration fees and other monies directly to it. The Qibin District People's Court in Hebi City, Henan Province (the jurisdiction of the registrant's address) has issued four separate Restriction on High Consumption Orders against one of Respondent's shareholders. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.

 

Further, says Complainant, Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. The resolving website impersonates Complainant. Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's mark. Respondent used a privacy service. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant has rights in the mark CES dating back to 1996 and uses it to promote the growth of the consumer electronics industry by organizing large-scale exhibitions, conducting market research, and providing related services.

 

The disputed domain name was registered in 2025.

 

Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark.

 

The resolving website impersonates Complainant, displaying its mark and logo and purporting to offer Complainant's services.

 

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 3.1 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

The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant's CES mark in its entirety and merely adds the ".ink" generic top-level domain ("gTLD"). This does not distinguish the disputed domain name from the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Dell Inc. v. Protection of Private Person, FA 1681432 (Forum Aug. 1, 2016) ("A TLD (whether a gTLD, sTLD or ccTLD) is disregarded under a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis because domain name syntax requires TLDs"); see also Abbott Labs v. Whois Svc., FA 1254682 (Forum May 14, 2009) ("the addition of a gTLD is irrelevant in distinguishing a disputed domain name from a registered mark"); see also Twitter, Inc. v. Jie, FA 1919786 (Forum Dec. 9, 2020) ("The Panel considers the disputed domain name [<twitter.luxe>] to be identical to Complainant's registered [TWITTER] trademark"). Thus the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is identical to Complainant's mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name: under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), WHOIS information may be used to determine whether a respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. See Alaska Air Group, Inc. and its subsidiary, Alaska Airlines v. Song Bin, FA 1574905 (Forum Sept. 17, 2014) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name as demonstrated by the WHOIS information and based on the fact that the complainant had not licensed or authorized the respondent to use its ALASKA AIRLINES mark). Here, the WHOIS information for the disputed domain name lists the registrant as "Quan Yu Hui Zhan He Nan Ji Tuan You Xian Gong Si / Zhang Bao Zhou". Therefore the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).

 

The resolving website impersonates Complainant, displaying Complainant's mark and logo, and purporting to offer Complainant's services. This is not a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Edible Communities v. Thoreau,  FA 1158554 (Forum Apr. 16, 2008) ("[R]espondent's use of the disputed domain name [<theedibleaustin.com>] to pass itself off as [c]omplainant shows that [r]espondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) as well as Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)."); see also Digg v. Digg , FA 1220833 (Forum Oct. 9, 2008) (finding no legitimate interest in respondent's use of the domain name <digg-inc.com> because "[r]espondent is attempting to pass itself off as [c]omplainant" and such "actions do not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶4(c)(iii)."). Thus the Panel finds that Respondent fails to use the disputed domain name to make a bona fide offering of goods or services, or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). And the Panel finds that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Respondent (who did not reply to Complainant's contentions) has not presented any plausible explanation for its use of Complainant's mark. In accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel shall draw such inferences from Respondent's failure to reply as it considers appropriate. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent did not have a legitimate use in mind when registering the disputed domain name.

 

Indeed, as already noted, the resolving website impersonates Complainant. This can evince bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See American International Group, Inc. v. Walter Busby d/b/a AIG Mergers and Acquisitions, FA 156251 (Forum May 30, 2003) (the resolving website gave every appearance of being associated or affiliated with Complainant's business); see also Mortgage Research Center LLC v. Russell Miranda, FA 993017 (Forum July 9, 2007) (Respondent is implying an affiliation with Complainant, and consumers seeking Complainant's products and services may become confused when encountering Respondent's website). Thus the Panel finds bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

 

Further, Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant's mark: the resolving website displays Complainant's mark and distinctive logo, and purports to offer Complainant's services. While constructive notice is insufficient to demonstrate bad faith, actual knowledge of a complainant's rights in a mark prior to registration may be evidence of bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Custom Modular Direct LLC v. Custom Modular Homes Inc., FA 1140580 (Forum Apr. 8, 2008) ("There is no place for constructive notice under the Policy."); see also Orbitz Worldwide, LLC v. Domain Librarian, FA 1535826 (Forum Feb. 6, 2014) ("The Panel notes that although the UDRP does not recognize 'constructive notice' as sufficient grounds for finding Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) bad faith, the Panel here finds actual knowledge through the name used for the domain and the use made of it."); see also Univision Comm'cns Inc. v. Norte, FA 1000079 (Forum Aug. 16, 2007) (rejecting the respondent's contention that it did not register the disputed domain name in bad faith since the panel found that the respondent had knowledge of the complainant's rights in the UNIVISION mark when registering the disputed domain name). The Panel finds that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the mark prior to Respondent's registration of the disputed domain name and that this constitutes bad faith under 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 <ces.ink> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Richard Hill, Panelist

Dated: July 8, 2026