TikTok Ltd. v 广州好友汇电子科技有限公司; (guang zhou hao you hui dian zi ke ji you xian gong si)

WIPO Case No. D2024-0125

ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

TikTok Ltd. v. 广州好友汇电子科技有限公司
(guang zhou hao you hui dian zi ke ji you xian gong si)

Case No. D2024-0125

1. The Parties

The Complainant is TikTok Ltd., Cayman Islands, United Kingdom, represented by CSC Digital Brand

Services Group AB, Sweden.

The Respondent is 广州好友汇电子科技有限公司 (guang zhou hao you hui dian zi ke ji you xian gong si),

China.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <tiktokeuro.com> is registered with DNSPod, Inc. (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed in English with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on January
12, 2024. On January 18, 2024, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar
verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On January 22, 2024, the Registrar transmitted by
email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed
domain name, which differed from the named Respondent (REDACTED FOR PRIVACY) and contact
information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on January 24,
2024, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the
Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint in
English on January 24, 2024.

On January 24, 2024, the Center informed the parties in Chinese and English, that the language of the registration agreement for the disputed domain name is Chinese. On the same day, the Complainant confirmed its request that English be the language of the proceeding. The Respondent did not submit any

comment on the Complainant’s submission.

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”).

page 2

In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent in Chinese and English of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on January 30, 2024. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was February 19, 2024. The Respondent did not submit

any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on February 20, 2024.

The Center appointed Joseph Simone as the sole panelist in this matter on March 6, 2024. 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

The Complainant, TikTok Ltd., is an Internet technology company that enables users to upload and view short-form mobile videos. The Complainant reached over a billion users worldwide in September 2021 and as of April 2023 had over 1.5 billion users. Its services are available in more than 150 different markets and in 75 languages. It has consequently become a leading destination for shortform mobile video.

The Complainant, with its affiliate TikTok Information Technologies UK Limited, has an extensive global portfolio of trade marks, including the following:

- European Union Trade Mark Registration No. 017913208 for TIK TOK in Classes 9, 25, 35, 42, 45,
registered on October 20, 2018;

- International Trade Mark Registration No. 1485318 for TIK TOK in Classes 9, 25, 35, 38, 41, 42, 45,
registered on November 21, 2019, designating Switzerland, Israel, Norway and etc.; and

- China Trade Mark Registration No. 51360513 for TIKTOK in Class 35, registered on May 21, 2022.

The disputed domain name was registered on November 22, 2023.

The Complainant’s evidence indicates that at the time of filing of the Complaint, the disputed domain name resolved to a website that copied and attempted to duplicate the Complainant’s official website “ by copying relevant designs, colour schemes, and displays for videos. At the time of issuance of this decision, the disputed domain name resolves to an inactive page.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant asserts that it has prior rights in the TIK TOK/TIKTOK trade marks and that it has acquired a strong reputation in its field of business.

The Complainant further notes that the disputed domain name registered by the Respondent is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s TIK TOK/TIKTOK trade marks.

The Complainant asserts that it has not authorized the Respondent to use its TIK TOK/TIKTOK trade marks, and there is no evidence to suggest that the Respondent has used or undertaken any demonstrable preparations to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services.

The Complainant further asserts that, considering the evidence, it is implausible that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name in good faith, and that any use of the disputed domain name must be in bad faith.

page 3

B. Respondent

The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

6.1. Preliminary Issue: Language of the Proceeding

In accordance with paragraph 11(a) of the Rules:

“[…] the language of the administrative 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.”

In this case, the language of the Registration Agreement for the disputed domain name is Chinese. Hence, the default language of the proceeding should be Chinese.

However, the Complainant filed the Complaint in English and requested that English be the language of the proceeding for the following main reasons:

- The disputed domain name is made up of Latin characters;

- The website found at the disputed domain name features various phrases and sentences in English; and

- The Complainant is not in a position to conduct these proceedings in Chinese without significant additional
expense and delay due to the need to arrange for the translation of the Complaint and the supporting
evidence.

The Respondent was notified in both Chinese and English of the language of the proceeding and the commencement of the proceeding and did not comment on the language of the proceeding or submit any response in either Chinese or English.

In exercising its discretion to use a language other than that of the registration agreement, the Panel must, in the spirit of fairness, take into account all relevant circumstances of the case, including the parties’ ability to understand and use the proposed language, time and costs (see WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 4.5.1).

Considering the circumstances of this case, the Panel determines that the language of the proceeding shall be English, and as such, the Panel has issued this decision in English. The Panel further finds that this determination should not create any prejudice to either Party and should ensure that the proceeding takes place with due expedition.

6.2. Substantive Issues

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. The standing (or threshold) test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the Complainant’s trade mark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7.

Based on the available record, the Panel acknowledges that the Complainant has established rights in the
TIK TOK/TIKTOK trade marks.

page 4

The disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s trade marks TIK TOK and TIKTOK in their entirety. Although the addition of the term “euro” may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds the mere addition of this geographical term does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s marks for the purposes of the Policy, as the dominant element of the disputed domain name is the Complainant’s trade marks TIK TOK/TIKTOK.

The Panel therefore finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the domain name is confusingly similar to its marks.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances in which the Respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name.

Although the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, panels have recognized that proving a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the challenging task of “proving a negative”, requiring information that is often primarily within the knowledge or control of the respondent. As such, where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name (although the burden of proof always remains on the complainant). If the respondent fails to come forward with such evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.1.

The Complainant asserts that it has not authorized the Respondent to use its trade marks and there is no evidence to suggest that the Respondent has used, or undertaken any demonstrable preparations to use, the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services.

Having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfactorily established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

The Respondent did not file a response and has therefore failed to assert factors or put forth evidence to establish that he enjoys rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. As such, the Panel concludes that the Respondent has failed to rebut the Complainant’s prima facie showing of the Respondent’s lack of rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and that none of the circumstances of paragraph 4(c) of the Policy is applicable in this case.

Accordingly, and based on the Panel’s findings below, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Panel notes that, for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, paragraph 4(b) of the Policy establishes circumstances, in particular but without limitation, that, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith.

Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy states that any of the following circumstances in particular, but without limitation, shall be considered as evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith:

(i) circumstances indicating that the respondent registered or acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant (the owner of the trade mark or service mark) or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in

excess of the respondent’s documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or

page 5

(ii) circumstances indicating that the respondent registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of
the trade mark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that the

respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or

(iii) circumstances indicating that the respondent has registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of

disrupting the business of a competitor; or

(iv) circumstances indicating that the respondent is using the domain name to intentionally attract, for
commercial gain, Internet users to its 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 the respondent’s

website or location or of a product or service on its website or location.

The examples of bad faith registration and use set forth in paragraph 4(b) of the Policy are not meant to be
exhaustive of all circumstances in which bad faith may be found. Other circumstances may also be relevant
in assessing whether a respondent’s registration and use of a domain name is in bad faith.
WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.2.1.

For reasons discussed under this and the preceding sections, the Panel believes that the Respondent’s conduct in this case constitutes bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name.

When the Respondent registered the disputed domain name, the TIK TOK/TIKTOK trade marks were
already widely known and directly associated with the Complainant’s activities. UDRP panels have
consistently found that the mere registration of a domain name that is confusingly similar (particularly domain
names comprising typos) to a famous or widely known trade mark by an unaffiliated entity can by itself create
a presumption of bad faith. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.1.4.

Given the extensive prior use and fame of the Complainant’s marks, in the Panel’s view, the Respondent should have been aware of the Complainant’s marks when registering the disputed domain name.

In light of the foregoing, it would be unreasonable to conclude that the Respondent – at the time of the registration of the disputed domain name – was unaware of the Complainant’s trade marks, especially considering the relevant circumstances where the Respondent had used the disputed domain name for a

website which imitates the Complainant’s own website. The Panel finds in these circumstances that, by
using the disputed domain name, the Respondent had intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain,
Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trade marks as to
the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of its website or of the products on its website
(paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy).

While the disputed domain name does not currently resolve to an active website, having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds the current non-use of the disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith in the circumstances of this proceeding. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.3.

The Panel is therefore of the view that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant’s trade mark rights, and used the disputed domain name to intentionally attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to his website or other online locations, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trade marks. Paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.

Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and used in bad faith.

page 6

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 disputed domain name <tiktokeuro.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

/Joseph Simone/
Joseph Simone
Sole Panelist
Date: March 20, 2024