Tencent Holdings Limited v 章成庆 (Cheng Qing Zhang)

WIPO Case No. D2023-2068

ARBITRATION

AND

MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Tencent Holdings Limited v. 章成庆 (Cheng Qing Zhang)

Case No. D2023-2068

1. The Parties

Complainant is Tencent Holdings Limited, Cayman Islands, United Kingdom, represented by Kolster Oy Ab,

Finland.

Respondent is 章成庆 (Cheng Qing Zhang), China.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <weixingpt.com> (the “Domain Name”) is registered with Alibaba Cloud

Computing Ltd. d/b/a HiChina ( (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed in English with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on May 9, 2023. On May 10, 2023, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On May 11, 2023, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the Domain Name which differed from the named Respondent (Redacted for privacy) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an

email communication to Complainant on May 12, 2023, providing the registrant and contact information
disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint.
Complainant filed an amended Complaint in English on May 17, 2023.

On May 12, 2023, the Center transmitted an email communication to the Parties in English and Chinese regarding the language of the proceeding. On May 15, 2023, Complainant submitted its request that English be the language of the proceeding. Respondent did not comment on the language of the proceeding.

The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended Complaint satisfied the formal
requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for
Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for

Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).

In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified Respondent in English and
Chinese of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on May 23, 2023. In accordance with the
Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was June 12, 2023. Respondent’s informal communication

page 2

was received by email on May 12, 2023. The Center notified the Commencement of Panel Appointment
Process to the Parties on June 21, 2023.

The Center appointed Kimberley Chen Nobles as the sole panelist in this matter on June 29, 2023. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the

Rules, paragraph 7.

4. Factual Background

Complainant, headquartered in Shenzhen, China, is a global Internet and technology company established
in 1998. Complainant provides Internet, mobile and telecommunication services and products, including
entertainment, and artificial intelligence. Such products include instant messenger, and the social media
application WeChat, which is an instant messaging, social media, and mobile payment application developed
by Complainant. First released in 2011, it became a standalone mobile application in 2018 with over 1 billion
monthly active users, providing text messaging, hold-to-talk voice messaging, broadcast messaging, video

conferencing, video games, sharing of photographs and videos, and location sharing.

Complainant owns registered trademarks worldwide with the WEIXIN mark, such as European Union

Trademark No. 014094791, registered on October 26, 2015.

The Domain Name was registered on December 15, 2022, and reverts to an inactive page.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

Complainant contends that (i) the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademarks; (ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name; and (iii) Respondent registered and is using the Domain Name in bad faith.

In particular, Complainant contends that it has trademark registrations for WEIXIN and that Respondent registered and is using the Domain Name with the intention to confuse Internet users looking for bona fide and well known WEIXIN products and services.

Complainant notes that it has no affiliation with Respondent and contends that Respondent is using the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the registration and use of the Domain Name other than trademark infringement. Further, Complainant contends that Respondent has acted in bad faith in acquiring and setting up the Domain Name, when Respondent clearly knew of Complainant’s rights.

B. Respondent

Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions, however, Respondent sent an email communication to the Center on May 12, 2023, indicating that Respondent is in the process of preparing to launch a new company named “WeiXing PaoTui” (未行跑腿) which provides delivery and errand services. Respondent indicated that he registered the Domain Name for his company as it aligns with his company’s name and reflects the services they offer. Respondent noted that there is no connection between the Domain Name and the WEIXIN brand, that the Domain Name was created based on his company's name and services, and it will not cause any confusion or misrepresentation. Respondent did not formally respond to the Complaint.

page 3

6. Discussion and Findings

6.1. Preliminary Issue: Language of the Proceeding

The Rules, in paragraph 11(a), provide that unless otherwise agreed by the parties or specified otherwise in the registration agreement, the language of the 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.

According to the information received from the Registrar, the language of the Registration Agreement for the
Domain Name is Chinese.

Complainant submitted its original Complaint in English. In its email dated May 15, 2023 and amended reasonable costs.
Complaint, Complainant submitted a request that the language of the proceeding should be English.
Complainant contends that Respondent sent an email communication to the Center on May 12, 2023 in
English; and that the Domain Name is composed entirely of English terms: Complainant’s trademark
WEIXIN and the English term “gpt”, and thus asserts that Respondent is familiar with the English language.

In exercising its discretion to use a language other than that of the Registration Agreement for the Domain Name, the Panel has to exercise such discretion judicially in the spirit of fairness and justice to both Parties, taking into account all relevant circumstances of the case, including matters such as the Parties’ ability to understand and use the proposed language, time, and costs.

The Panel accepts Complainant’s submissions regarding the language of the proceeding. The Panel notes that the Domain Name is composed of Complainant’s trademark plus the English term “gpt”. In addition, the Center notified the Parties in Chinese and English of the language of the proceeding as well as notified

Respondent in Chinese and English of commencement of the proceeding and indicated that Respondent may file a Response in either Chinese or English. Respondent also communicated with the Center by email in English.

The Panel is also mindful of the need to ensure that the proceeding is conducted in a timely and cost- effective manner. Complainant may be unduly disadvantaged by having to translate the Complaint into Chinese and to conduct the proceeding in Chinese while conducting the proceeding in English would not cause unfairness to either Party in this case.

Having considered all the circumstances of this case, the Panel determines that English be the language of the proceeding.

6.2. Substantive Issues

Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, to succeed Complainant must satisfy the Panel that:

(i)        the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and

(ii)       Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and

(iii)      the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

Section 4.3 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition
(“WIPO Overview 3.0”) states that failure to respond to the complainant’s contentions would not by itself
mean that the complainant is deemed to have prevailed; and a respondent’s default is not necessarily an
admission that the complainant’s claims are true.

page 4

Thus, although in this case Respondent has failed to respond to the Complaint, the burden remains with evidence.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

Ownership of a trademark registration is generally sufficient evidence that a complainant has the requisite rights in a mark for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1. Complainant has provided evidence of its rights in the WEIXIN trademarks, as noted above under section 4. Complainant has also submitted evidence, which supports that the WEIXIN trademarks are widely known and a distinctive identifier of Complainant’s products and services. Complainant has therefore proven that it has the requisite rights in the WEIXIN trademarks.

With Complainant’s rights in the WEIXIN trademarks established, the remaining question under the first
element of the Policy is whether the Domain Name, typically disregarding the Top-Level Domain (“TLD”) in
which it is registered (in this case is, “.com”), is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark.
See, e.g., B & H Foto & Electronics Corp. v. Domains by Proxy, Inc. / Joseph Gross, WIPO Case No.

D2010-0842.

Here, the Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s WEIXIN trademarks. These WEIXIN
trademarks are recognizable in the Domain Name. In particular, the Domain Name’s inclusion of
Complainant’s trademark WEIXIN in its entirety, with the addition of the term “gpt” after “weixin” does not
prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the Domain Name <weixingpt.com> and Complainant’s

WEIXIN trademarks. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8.

Thus, the Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied the first element of the Policy.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, a complainant must make a prima facie showing that a respondent possesses no rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name. See, e.g., Malayan Banking Berhad v. Beauty, Success & Truth International, WIPO Case No. D2008-1393. Once a complainant makes such a prima facie showing, the burden of production shifts to the respondent, though the burden of proof always remains on the complainant. If the respondent fails to come forward with relevant evidence showing rights or legitimate interests, the complainant will have sustained its burden under the second element of the UDRP.

From the record in this case, it is evident that Respondent was, and is, aware of Complainant and its WEIXIN showing that Respondent has been commonly known by the Domain Name.

trademarks, and does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. In addition,
Complainant asserts that Respondent is not an authorized reseller and is not related to Complainant.

In addition, Respondent has not used the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Rather, at the time of filing of the Complaint, the Domain Name reverted to an inactive website. Such use does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or

services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use and cannot under the circumstances confer on
Respondent any rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. See, e.g., Intesa Sanpaolo S.p.A. v.

Charles Duke / Oneandone Private Registration, WIPO Case No. D2013-0875.

Moreover, the nature of the Domain Name is inherently misleading, and carries a risk of implied affiliation
(see WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.5.1).

Accordingly, Complainant has provided evidence supporting its prima facie claim that Respondent lacks any rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. Respondent has failed to produce countervailing evidence of any rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. Thus, the Panel concludes that Respondent does

page 5

not have any rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name and Complainant has met its burden under

paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Panel finds that Respondent’s actions indicate that Respondent registered and is using the Domain
Name in bad faith.

Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy provides a non-exhaustive list of circumstances indicating bad faith registration and use on the part of a domain name registrant, namely:

“(i) circumstances indicating that you have registered or you have acquired the domain name primarily for the
purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is
the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration

in excess of your documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or

(ii) you have registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from
reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that you have engaged in a pattern of such

conduct; or

(iii) you have registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a

competitor; or

(iv) by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet
users to your website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s
mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your website or location or of a product or

service on your website or location.”

The Panel finds that Complainant has provided ample evidence to show that registration and use of the

WEIXIN trademarks long predate the registration of the Domain Name.

Complainant is also well established and known. Indeed, the record shows that Complainant’s WEIXIN
trademarks and related products and services are widely known and recognized. The evidence provided by
Complainant with respect to the extent of use and global fame of its WEIXIN mark combined with the
absence of any evidence provided by Respondent to the contrary, suggests to the Panel that, at the time the
Domain Name was registered, Respondent was likely aware of the WEIXIN trademarks or knew or should
have known that the Domain Name was confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademarks. See WIPO
Overview 3.0, section 3.2.2; and see also TTT Moneycorp Limited v. Privacy Gods / Privacy Gods Limited,
WIPO Case No. D2016-1973.

The Panel therefore finds that Respondent’s awareness of Complainant’s trademark rights at the time of registration suggests bad faith. See Red Bull GmbH v. Credit du Léman SA, Jean-Denis Deletraz, WIPO Case No. D2011-2209; Nintendo of America Inc v. Marco Beijen, Beijen Consulting, Pokemon Fan Clubs Org., and Pokemon Fans Unite, WIPO Case No. D2001-1070; and BellSouth Intellectual Property

Corporation v. Serena, Axel, WIPO Case No. D2006-0007.

The fact that the Domain Name does not resolve to a website and is in effect being passively held does not prevent a finding of bad faith. When a domain name is being so held, the question of bad faith use does not squarely fall under one of the non-exhaustive factors set out in paragraph 4(b) of the Policy. However,

section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0, instructs that UDRP panelists should examine the totality of the
circumstances in each case and that the following factors that have been considered relevant in applying the
passive holding doctrine: “(i) the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the complainant’s mark, (ii) the

page 6

failure of the respondent to submit a response or to provide any evidence of actual or contemplated good-
faith use, (iii) the respondent’s concealing its identity or use of false contact details (noted to be in breach of
its registration agreement), and (iv) the implausibility of any good faith use to which the domain name may
be put.”

Here Complainant submitted evidence that its fanciful WEIXIN mark has been used for many years globally before Respondent’s registration of the Domain Name. Respondent has not offered any evidence to rebut this conclusion, nor has he provided any evidence of his intended use of the Domain Name. Given these circumstances, the Panel finds the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy that the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith by Respondent is met.

Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the Domain Name in bad faith and

Complainant succeeds under the third element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.

7. Decision

For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the Domain Name <weixingpt.com> be transferred to Complainant.

/Kimberley Chen Nobles/
Kimberley Chen Nobles
Sole Panelist
Date: July 5, 2023