DECISION

 

Nintendo of America Inc. v. Dong Song Jiang

Claim Number: FA2606002227645

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Nintendo of America Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by William C. Rava of Perkins Coie LLP, Washington, USA. Respondent is Dong Song Jiang ("Respondent"), China.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <pokemoncenter.store>, registered with Chengdu West Dimension Digital Technology Co., Ltd..

 

PANEL

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

 

Paul M. DeCicco, as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on June 16, 2026; Forum received payment on June 16, 2026.

 

On June 17, 2026, Chengdu West Dimension Digital Technology Co., Ltd. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <pokemoncenter.store> domain name is registered with Chengdu West Dimension Digital Technology Co., Ltd. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Chengdu West Dimension Digital Technology Co., Ltd. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Chengdu West Dimension Digital Technology Co., Ltd. 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 25, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Chinese and English Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 15, 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@pokemoncenter.store. Also on June 25, 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 Paul M. DeCicco, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Paul M. DeCicco 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 PROCEEDING

Notwithstanding that the relevant Registration Agreement may have been written in Chinese, pursuant to UDRP Rule 11(a) the Panel finds persuasive evidence to suggest the likely possibility that Respondent is to a material degree conversant and proficient in the English language.

 

Respondent's at-issue domain name targets utilizes the Latin alphabet and is comprised of English words. Further, Respondent's website at the at-issue domain name is written entirely in English. The website contains extensive English-language text, including product descriptions. Thus, it appears that Respondent is capable of understanding English. Consequently, since Respondent most likely has a working knowledge of English, Complainant would be unduly burdened if this proceeding were to continue in Chinese as there would be no cognizable benefit to Respondent, the dispute resolution provider, or the Panel, and yet Complainant would have to bear the time and expense of facilitating the translation of relevant documents into Chinese.

 

Therefore, after considering the circumstances of the present case including the proper service of a Chinese and English Written Notice of the Complaint upon Respondent and Respondent's failure to respond thereto, the Panel finds that the instant proceeding should be in English.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant contends in part as follows:

 

Complainant Nintendo of America Inc. and its affiliated entities own, use, and have registered worldwide the world-famous POKÉMON mark in connection with a vast array of goods. Nintendo's Pokémon brand is one of the most well-recognized brands, with products spanning video games, trading cards, animated television shows, movies, comic books, toys, apparel, accessories, and more. The first Pokémon video games, Pokémon Red and Pokémon Green, were released in 1996.

 

In recognition of its trademark rights, the United States Patent and Trademark Office have issued Nintendo several registrations for the Pokémon marks across a wide range of classes, including POKÉMON and POKÉMON GO, among others.

 

Further, Nintendo's parent company ("Nintendo Kabushiki Kaisha" or "Nintendo Co., Ltd." in English) owns hundreds of trademark registrations for the Pokémon marks worldwide, including in China.

 

The at-issue domain name is currently registered to Respondent, whose identity and other information was previously hidden behind a privacy protection service but has since been revealed to be Dong Song Jiang.

 

The at-issue domain name was registered and is being used to engage in a consumer fraud scheme. The domain name is being used to operate a website that impersonates Complainant's official Pokémon Center website located at <pokemancenter.com> in order to purportedly sell Pokémon-branded products including trading cards, plush toys, video games, apparel, and accessories. The website impersonates the official Pokémon Center by copying the title and branding of the official website, prominently displaying "Pokémon Center" at the top of the homepage. Respondent's at-issue domain name's website is replete with uses of Complainant's intellectual property, including the POKÉMON design mark and the iconic Pokéball image. Respondent's website is entirely in English. Neither the Respondent nor its <pokemoncenter.store> website are affiliated with or authorized by Nintendo. The website does not disclaim any lack of relationship with Nintendo.

 

The at-issue domain name is confusingly similar to the Pokémon marks. The Pokémon brand is world-famous and is associated with one of the largest franchises in the world. The Pokémon marks are inherently distinctive and have achieved widespread fame throughout the world. The at-issue domain name is confusingly similar to the Pokémon marks as it incorporates the POKÉMON mark in its entirety, merely adding the additional term "center" (a direct reference to Complainant's official online store at <pokemoncenter.com>). The applicable TLD, in this case ".store," may be disregarded when assessing the first element, as it is a standard registration requirement.

 

Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the Domain Name. Respondent does not hold trademark registrations that are identical, similar, or in any way related to the Pokémon marks. Respondent is not an authorized dealer, distributor, or licensee of Complainant and is not authorized to use the Pokémon marks. The registrar's correspondence has since revealed and identified the registrant as "Dong Song Jiang," a name that bears no resemblance to the at-issue domain name. Respondent is using the at-issue domain name to create the false impression that the <pokemoncenter.store> website is an official website of Complainant, or is affiliated with or authorized by Complainant, to purportedly sell Nintendo products. For instance, the banner at the top of the website homepage incorporates the entirety of the POKÉMON mark and identifies the page as "Pokémon Center," impersonating an authorized Pokémon website. However, neither the website nor the Respondent are affiliated with or authorized by Complainant, and the <pokemoncenter.store> website does not disclaim the lack of relationship. Wrongful use of a domain and website to impersonate a complainant and offer competing services does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services. Additionally, because the <pokemoncenter.store> website is being used for commercial gain— purporting to sell Pokémon products—the at-issue domain name cannot be considered fair use. Respondent's use of the at-issue domain name to operate a website that copies the official Pokémon Center website's branding, layout, and content in order to pass itself off as Complainant demonstrates a clear lack of rights or legitimate interests. Finally, using a confusingly similar domain name that attempts to pass off as an official website of Complainant supports a finding that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the at-issue domain name per Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).

 

The at-issue domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. First, Respondent knew of Complainant and its rights prior to registering the at-issue domain name. When Respondent registered the domain name in August 2025, using the famous Pokémon marks in the domain, Respondent had prior knowledge of Complainant's rights to the Pokémon marks. Second, Respondent's unlawful use of the at-issue domain name, aimed directly at harming Complainant and defrauding consumers, constitutes bad faith. The domain name uses the Pokémon marks to impersonate Complainant and/or claim false affiliation with Complainant for Respondent's commercial gain. Respondent is operating an online consumer fraud scheme, purporting to sell Pokémon products that consumers are unlikely ever to receive, while collecting their personal and financial information. This alone is sufficient to establish bad faith in both registration and use since a respondent's use of an at-issue domain to pursue an illegal activity qualifies that domain as having been registered and used in bad faith. Third, in addition to the generally unlawful activity, Respondent's activity is also independently in bad faith because Respondent is using the at-issue domain name (and the Pokémon marks) to mislead consumers into believing the website is a legitimate website of Complainant or is at least affiliated with Complainant. After misleading consumers into visiting the <pokemoncenter.store> website, Respondent purportedly sells Pokémon products. The Respondent's actions constitute bad faith use under both Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) because Respondent is disrupting Complainant's business and commercially benefiting from Complainant's mark. Fourth, registering a domain name that closely mimics a trademark holder's official domain to impersonate the trademark holder itself constitutes bad faith, in part because it can be used to send malicious phishing e-mails. Fifth, by using the <pokemoncenter.store> website order forms and checkout process to purport to sell Pokémon products, Respondent is able to collect consumers' sensitive personal and financial information, including names, shipping addresses, email addresses, and payment card details. Such information harvesting, facilitated by Respondent's impersonation of Complainant, may be used for identity theft, unauthorized charges, phishing, or other fraudulent purposes. Finally, Respondent's use of the at-issue domain name to pass itself off as Complainant, using Complainant's intellectual property including the POKÉMON design marks, the iconic Pokéball, and Nintendo's copyrighted content, to operate a fraudulent website demonstrates bad faith.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant has trademark rights in the POKÉMON mark.

 

Complainant's rights in POKÉMON predate Respondent's registration of <pokemoncenter.store>.

 

Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant nor authorized to use Complainant's trademarks in any capacity.

 

Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to address a website looking like it is authorized by Complainant where Respondent purports to offer Complainant's POKÉMON branded products for sale and to collect personal private data.

 

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 at-issue domain names are each confusingly similar or identical to a trademark in which Complainant has rights.

 

Complainant shows that it has numerous USPTO registrations for its POKÉMON trademark and asserts having many other POKÉMON trademark registrations worldwide. Any of such registrations is sufficient to demonstrate Complainant's rights in the POKÉMON mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See BGK Trademark Holdings, LLC & Beyoncé Giselle Knowles-Carter v. Chanphut / Beyonce Shop, FA 1626334 (Forum Aug. 3, 2015) (asserting that Complainant's registration with the USPTO (or any other governmental authority) adequately proves its rights under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)).

 

Respondent's <pokemoncenter.store> domain name consists of Complainant's POKÉMON trademark followed by the here suggestive top-level domain name ".store." The differences between the at-issue domain name and Complainant's POKÉMON trademark are insufficient to distinguish the at-issue domain name from POKÉMON for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Therefore, the Panel concludes that Respondent's <pokemoncenter.store> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's POKÉMON trademark. See Bittrex, Inc. v. Privacy protection service - whoisproxy.ru, FA 1759828 (Forum Jan. 12, 2018) ("The Panel here finds that the <bittrex.market> domain name is identical to the BITTREX mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)."); see also Roche Therapeutics Inc. v. Williams Shorell, FA 1684961 (Forum Aug. 30, 2016) ("Complainant asserts Respondent's <boniva.top> domain name is identical to the BONIVA mark.  The addition of a generic top level domain to a mark does not differentiate the domain from said mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).").

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must first make out a prima facie case showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of an at-issue domain name and then the burden, in effect, shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm't Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006). Since Respondent failed to respond, Complainant's prima facie showing acts conclusively.

 

Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant's trademark in any capacity and as discussed below, there are no Policy ¶ 4(c) circumstances from which the Panel might find that Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in respect of the at‑issue domain name. See Navistar International Corporation v. N Rahmany, FA 1620789 (Forum Jun. 8, 2015) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the at-issue domain name where the complainant had never authorized the respondent to incorporate its NAVISTAR mark into any domain name).

 

The WHOIS information for <pokemoncenter.store> leads to identifying <pokemoncenter.store>'s registrant as "Dong Song Jiang" and the record contains no evidence that tends to prove that Respondent is commonly known by <pokemoncenter.store> or any variation thereof. The Panel therefore concludes that Respondent is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Coppertown Drive-Thru Sys., LLC v. Snowden, FA 715089 (Forum July 17, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <coppertown.com> domain name where there was no evidence in the record, including the WHOIS information, suggesting that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain name).

 

Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to address a website that appears like it may be a genuine or authorized website of Complainant. The <pokemoncenter.store> website displays Complainant's POKÉMON trademark, logo, and images of a variety of Complainant's products. The products are also purportedly for sale. Respondent's use of <pokemoncenter.store> to pose as Complainant and misdirect internet users to Respondent's website is not indicative of a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor a non-commercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Insomniac Holdings, LLC v. Mark Daniels, FA 1735969 (Forum July 15, 2017) (refusing to find rights and legitimate interests in a domain name on the part of a respondent when the disputed domain name "resolves to a website that Respondent has designed to mimic Complainant's own in an attempt to pass itself off as Complainant").

 

Given the foregoing, Respondent lacks rights and lacks legitimate interests in respect of <pokemoncenter.store>.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

As discussed below without being exhaustive, Respondent acted in bad faith.

 

As mentioned above, Respondent uses <pokemoncenter.store> to address a website looking like it might be an authorized website of Complainant. There, Complainant displays images for a number of POKÉMON related products and purports to offer such products for sale. Respondent's use of <pokemoncenter.store> to pass off as Complainant or an agent of Complainant and feign being an authorized online shop for Complainant's merchandise is disruptive to Complainant's business and intended to attract internet users looking for Complainant to Respondent's website so that Respondent might wrongfully capitalize on the confusion it created between its <pokemoncenter.store> domain name and Complainant's POKÉMON trademark. Respondent's use of <pokemoncenter.store> demonstrates Respondent's bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). 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."); see also, Chevron Intellectual Property LLC v. Domain ID Shield Service / Domain ID Shield Service CO., Limited, FA 1841700 (Forum June 21, 2019) (finding that respondent was using "chevronplacement.com" in bad faith in order to "disrupt the business of Complainant by causing internet users to think an affiliation exists between Respondent's domain names and Complainant");see also, 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).")

 

Next, by deploying online order forms on the <pokemoncenter.store> website Respondent undoubtedly collects proprietary personal and financial data, such as names, shipping addresses, email addresses, and payment card details from third party consumers that have been duped into visiting and using Respondent's <pokemoncenter.store> website. Such fraudulently harvested information may be used by Respondent for an assortment of illegal purposes including identity theft, unauthorized charges and phishing thus further demonstrating Complainant's bad faith registration and use of the <pokemoncenter.store> domain name. See Morgan Stanley v. Bruce Pu, FA 1764120 (Forum Feb. 2, 2018) ("[T]he screenshot of the resolving webpage allows users to input their name and email address, which Complainant claims Respondent uses that to fraudulently phish for information. Thus, the Panel agrees that Respondent phishes for information and finds that Respondent does so in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).")

 

Moreover, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the POKÉMON mark when it registered <pokemoncenter.store> as a domain name. Respondent's actual knowledge is evident from the worldwide notoriety of Complainant's POKÉMON trademark and from Respondent's use of the domain name to address a website that by mimicking Complainant's genuine website appears as if it is an authorized website of Complainant. Respondent's registration and use of a confusingly similar domain name with knowledge of Complainant's rights in POKÉMON further demonstrates Respondent's bad faith. See Lemon Inc. v. Sumer Singh, FA 2110519 (Forum Sept. 5, 2024) ("registration of a disputed domain name with actual knowledge of another's trademark rights is sufficient to establish bad faith, and can be shown by the notoriety of the mark and the use the Respondent makes of the disputed domain name"); see also, Minicards Vennootschap Onder FIrma Amsterdam v. Moscow Studios, FA 1031703 (Forum Sept. 5, 2007) (holding that respondent registered a domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) after concluding that respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's mark when registering the disputed domain name); 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).

 

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 <pokemoncenter.store> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist

Dated: July 16, 2026