DECISION

 

MVW Holdings, Inc. v. 旦唐春

Claim Number: FA2608002238430

 

PARTIES

Complainant is MVW Holdings, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Joanna M. Myers of Howard & Howard Attorneys PLLC, Nevada, USA. Respondent is 旦唐春 ("Respondent"), China.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <magna-tiles-shop.com>, registered with Guizhou Zhongyu Zhike Network Technology Co., Ltd.

 

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.

 

Héctor Ariel Manoff as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on August 10, 2026; Forum received payment on August 10, 2026.

 

On August 10, 2026, Guizhou Zhongyu Zhike Network Technology Co., Ltd. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <magna-tiles-shop.com> domain name is registered with Guizhou Zhongyu Zhike Network Technology Co., Ltd. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Guizhou Zhongyu Zhike Network Technology Co., Ltd. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Guizhou Zhongyu Zhike Network 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 August 19, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Chinese and English Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of September 8, 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@magna-tiles-shop.com. Also on August 19, 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 September 9, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Héctor Ariel Manoff 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

According to the Registrar, the registration agreement is written in Chinese. Rule 11(a) provides that the language of the proceedings is the language of the registration agreement, subject to the authority of the Panel to determine otherwise, having regard to the circumstances of the case. Complainant filed its Amended Complaint in English and requests that these proceedings be conducted in English.

 

The Panel finds persuasive evidence to suggest the likely possibility that Respondent is to a material degree conversant and proficient in the English language.

 

The disputed domain name targets a trademark owned by a U.S. based company and is comprised of words in English TILES and SHOP.

 

In addition, the resulting webpage is entirely in English (Annex 4).

 

Respondent has not submitted evidence to prove that it cannot understand English.

 

Complainant and their representative do not understand Chinese and since there has been no response to the complaint and Respondent has not objected that it could not read or understand the complaint, the Panel finds that in the circumstances it is appropriate for these proceedings to continue in the English language.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

1- Complainant, MVW Holdings, Inc., owns trademark registrations for the MAGNA-TILES marks since at least 2018 with use since 1995 and through its website <magnatiles.com>.

2- The disputed domain name <magna-tiles-shop.com> is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant's trademark, as it incorporates the mark in its entirety with only the addition of the generic term "shop" and the top-level domain ".com".

3- Respondent registered the disputed domain name in July 18, 2026.

4- Respondent has no legitimate rights or interests in the disputed domain name.

5- Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant, MVW Holdings, Inc., owns trademark registrations for MAGNATILES, as from 2018, with first use since 1995, which are used in connection with construction toys, magnetic building tiles and related goods on its site <magnatiles.com>. Respondent registered the disputed domain name on July 18, 2026. Respondent registered and is using the domain name 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 3.1 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

Complainant, MVW Holdings, Inc., owns trademark registrations for MAGNATILES as from at least 2018 (Annex 1), which has been used in connection with construction toys, magnetic building tiles and related goods (Annex 2). Respondent registered the disputed domain name on on July 18, 2026 (Annex 3). See Red Hat, Inc. v. Muhammad Shahzad, FA 1787738 (Forum June 19, 2018) ("Registration of a mark with multiple trademark agencies is sufficient to demonstrate rights to a mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)."); see also Bittrex, Inc. v. Domain Privacy Services, FA 1786849 (Forum June 15, 2018) (finding Complainant has trademark rights in the BITTREX mark through registration of the mark with the EUIPO and the USPTO).

 

Complainant also owns and uses the domain name <magnatiles.com> (Annex 2) to promote its products. 

 

Since Complainant provides evidence of registration of the MAGNATILES mark with the USPTO (Annex 1), the Panel finds Complainant has demonstrated rights in the MAGNATILES mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Complainant argues the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the MAGNATILES mark as it incorporates Complainant's trademark along with the generic term "shop", and the gTLD ".com".

 

Panels have found additional terms insufficient to defeat a finding of confusing similarity. 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."). Further, TLDs are irrelevant for purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis. See Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association v. Shi Lei aka Shilei, FA 1784643 (Forum June 18, 2018) ("A TLD (whether a gTLD, sTLD or ccTLD) is disregarded under a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis because domain name syntax requires TLDs.").

 

Given that Respondent only adds a generic term, two hyphens and a gTLD to the MAGANTILES mark, the Panel concludes the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's marks under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant argues Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name because Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and Complainant has never licensed rights to or authorized Respondent to use the MAGNATILES mark.

 

The Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the <magna-tiles-shop.com> domain name. Under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), relevant WHOIS information, among other evidence, may demonstrate that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. See Chevron Intellectual Property LLC v. Fred Wallace, FA 1626022 (Forum July 27, 2015) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <chevron-europe.com> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), as the WHOIS information named "Fred Wallace" as registrant of the disputed domain name).

 

In this case according to the information provided, Respondent is not mentioned as MAGNATILESSHOP (Annex 3). Thus, the Panel concludes that the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).

 

Further, there is no evidence to suggest Respondent was authorized, licensed rights to, or otherwise permitted to use the MAGNATILES mark.

 

Respondent has neither refuted nor submitted evidence on the contrary.

 

According to the evidence submitted (Annex 4), Respondent's use of the <magna-tiles-shop.com> domain is not a bona fide offering of goods. The website includes Complainant's trademark, logo and products.

 

This Panel finds that the purpose of the disputed domain name is to try to show that the disputed domain name is associated with Complainant and that Respondent is not using the domain name in connection with a legitimate noncommercial use or fair use under Policy 4(c)(iii).

 

Therefore, the Panel agrees that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and does not have legitimate interest under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

The domain name's registration by Respondent was done after Complainant's domain name and trademarks had been registered. (Annexes 1, 2 and 3).

 

The dispute domain name was registered on July 18, 2026 (Annex 3).

 

The Panel also points out that the disputed domain name <magna-tiles-shop.com>, includes Complainant's trademark along with two hyphens a generic term which refers to shop Complainant's products. This last fact shows bad faith.

 

According to the evidence provided by Complainant (Annex 4), which was not refuted by Respondent, the disputed domain name redirects to a webpage that includes Complainant's trademark with the same logo and colors and the offer of the same products (building magnetic toys) for sale.

 

It is clear for this Panel that Respondent is trying mimic Complainant's site.

 

Thus, this Panel finds that the registration of the domain name was done with Complainant's marks in mind. Registration was done in bad faith as well as the use of it.

 

The Panel concludes that Respondent has the intention of creating an association with Complainant and its products and has registered the domain name with the intent to attract and divert Internet users to the corresponding websites for its own benefit. See Carey Int'l, Inc. v. Kogan, FA 486191 (Forum July 29, 2005) ("[T]he Panel finds that Respondent is capitalizing on the confusing similarity of its domain names to benefit from the valuable goodwill that Complainant has established in its marks. Consequently, it is found that Respondent registered and used the domain names in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).").

 

The Panel determines that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in 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 <magna-tiles-shop.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Héctor Ariel Manoff, Panelist

Dated: September 15, 2026