TikTok Ltd. v Shimanto Neer

WIPO Case No. D2024-0241

ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

TikTok Ltd. v. Shimanto Neer

Case No. D2024-0241

1. The Parties

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

Services Group AB, Sweden.

The Respondent is Shimanto Neer, Bangladesh.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <tiktok18apk.live> is registered with NameCheap, Inc. (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on January 19, 2024. 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, Privacy service provided by Withheld for privacy ehf) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on January 31, 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 on February 1, 2024.

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 the Respondent of the
Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on February 7, 2024. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph
5, the due date for Response was February 27, 2024. The Respondent did not submit any response.
Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on March 1, 2024.

page 2

The Center appointed Mario Soerensen Garcia as the sole panelist in this matter on March 12, 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 is an Internet technology company that enables users to create and upload short videos. The Complainant has offices in Los Angeles, New York, London, Paris, Berlin, Dubai, Mumbai, Singapore, Jakarta, Seoul, and Tokyo, among others.

The Complainant is the owner of various trademark registrations, such as the United States of America registrations detailed below:

Trademark	Registration no.	Registration date	Classes
TIK TOK	5653614	Jan. 15, 2019	9, 38, 41, 42
TIKTOK (stylized)	5974902	Feb. 04, 2020	9, 38, 41, 42
TIKTOK	5981212	Feb. 11, 2020	9, 38, 41, 42

The Respondent was identified as Shimanto Neer, from Bangladesh.

The Complainant is the owner of the domain name <tiktok.com>, registered on July 21, 1996.

The disputed domain name was registered on June 25, 2023, and resolved to a website that claimed to be affiliated with the Complainant by displaying the Complainant’s distinctive logo, trademark, and color scheme, in connection with the promotion of an unauthorized app called “TikTok18+” offering adult content. Currently, the disputed domain name resolves to an error page.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the disputed domain name.

The Complainant argues that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark
TIKTOK.

The Complainant also argues there is no evidence that the Respondent has made demonstrable preparations to use the disputed domain name for legitimate purposes, nor is there any evidence that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services.

The Complainant further argues that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the
disputed domain name. That being the case, the Complainant finds that the disputed domain name is used
to take unfair advantage of the Complainant’s rights for commercial gain, since Internet users and the
Complainant’s users would inevitably associate the content related to the disputed domain name with the

Complainant’s prior trademarks.

Moreover, the Complainant stresses that the Respondent is not commonly known by the name “tiktok.”

page 3

According to the Complainant, it has prior rights over the trademarks TIKTOK, and has not authorized the
registration and use of the disputed domain name, nor the use of its trade name and trademarks by the

Respondent.

The Complainant contends that the Respondent is not affiliated to or authorized by the Complainant to use or
register the disputed domain name, and that its intellectual property rights for TIKTOK trademarks predate
the registration of the disputed domain name.

The Complainant also argues that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s rights and has clearly registered the disputed domain name to target the Complainant’s trademark, and that the registration of the disputed domain name was conducted in bad faith.

The Complainant also contends that the disputed domain name directed to a website that impersonated the Complainant, offering adult content, which is prohibited by TikTok’s Terms of Service. This website featured the Complainant’s TIKTOK trademark and logo, without authorization.

The Complainant requests the transfer of the disputed domain name.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

In accordance with paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove that each of the three following elements is satisfied:

(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademarks or service marks in which the Complainant has rights; and

(ii)       the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and

(iii)      the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Complainant has shown rights in respect of the trademark TIKTOK for the purposes of the Policy.
WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1.

The entirety of the mark TIKTOK is reproduced within the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7.

The Panel finds that the addition of the element “18apk” does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8.

The Panel finds the first element of the Policy has been established.

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.

page 4

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 difficult 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 relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.1.

Having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent has not rebutted the Complainant’s prima facie showing and has not come forward with any relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise.

The Panel understands that the use of the disputed domain name for illegal activity, namely impersonation, can never confer rights or legitimate interests on the Respondent. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.13.1.

The Panel finds the second element of the Policy has been established.

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.

In the present case, the Panel notes that at the time the disputed domain name was registered, the Respondent was clearly aware of the Complainant’s trademark registrations for TIKTOK as well as its website “ The Panel notes that the Respondent tried to impersonate the Complainant’s website, as well as its logo, offering adult/pornographic services under the TIKTOK trademark, as such, causing harm to the reputation of the Complainant.

Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out a list of non-exhaustive circumstances that may indicate that a domain name was registered and used in bad faith, but other circumstances may 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.

The Panel finds that the use of the disputed domain name for illegal activity, namely, impersonation,
constitutes bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.4. Having reviewed the record, the Panel finds the

Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name constitute bad faith under the Policy.

The Panel finds that the Complainant has established the third element 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 disputed domain name <tiktok18apk.live> be transferred to the Complainant.

/Mario Soerensen Garcia/
Mario Soerensen Garcia
Sole Panelist
Date: March 26, 2024