The Complainants are Bytedance Ltd., Cayman Islands, United Kingdom and Beijing Bytedance Technology Co. Ltd. (北京字节跳动科技有限公司), China, represented by CSC Digital Brand Services Group AB, Sweden.
The Respondent is 叶昭龙 (Ye Zhao Long), China.
2. The Domain Names and RegistrarsThe disputed domain names
The disputed domain names
The Complaint was filed in English with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on November 25, 2021 regarding 32 disputed domain names. On November 25, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the First Registrar and the Second Registrar each a request for registrar verification in connection with the 32 disputed domain names. On November 26, 2021, the First Registrar and the Second Registrar each transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the 32 disputed domain names which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainants on January 10, 2022 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainants to submit an amendment to the Complaint.
On January 10, 2022, the Center transmitted another email communication to the Parties in English and Chinese regarding the language of the proceeding. On January 13, 2022, the Complainants submitted their request that English be the language of the proceeding. The Respondent did not comment on the language of the proceeding.
The Complainants filed an amended Complaint in English on January 13, 2022, regarding the 33 disputed domain names in Section 2 above and withdrawing a disputed domain name. On January 17, 2022, the Center transmitted by email to the First Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the two added disputed domain names. On January 18, 2022, the First Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming the registrant and contact information for the two added disputed domain names.
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 in English and Chinese of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on January 20, 2022. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was February 9, 2022. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on February 10, 2022.
The Center appointed James Wang as the sole panelist in this matter on February 16, 2022. 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 BackgroundThe Complainants have products available in more than 150 markets globally, and have offices in 126 cities all over the world, including Beijing, Shanghai, Los Angeles, New York, London, Paris, Berlin, Dubai, Mumbai, Singapore, Jakarta, Seoul, and Tokyo. As of November 2019, the Complainants have employed over 60,000 employees and 15 research and development centers around the globe.
The Complainants own a series of content platforms that enable people to connect with consuming and creating content through machine learning technology, including Douyin, TikTok, and Toutiao.
Douyin is China’s leading destination for short-form mobile videos. Douyin was launched in China in September 2016 and quickly became a popular short-video sharing platform in China. Its user base reached 600 million in January 2021. Meanwhile, TikTok, the international version of Douyin, was launched outside China in May 2017 and became the most downloaded application in the United States of America in October 2018.
The Complainants are the owner of multiple trademark registrations for BYTEDANCE, DOUYIN, and DOUPAY across various jurisdictions, including but not limited to the following:
- China trademark registration No. 13563456 BYTEDANCE, registered on February 21, 2015, in class 35;
- China trademark registration No. 13563457 BYTEDANCE, registered on February 21, 2015, in class 42;
- European Union trademark registration No. 017925031 BYTEDANCE, registered on October 30, 2018, in classes 9, 35, 38, 41, 42, and 45;
- China trademark registration No. 28968194 DOUYIN, registered on December 21, 2018, in class 14;
- China trademark registration No. 28984346 DOUYIN, registered on December 21, 2018, in class 45;
- China trademark registration No. 43350664 DOUPAY, registered on November 28, 2020, in class 42 with an application date of December 26, 2019; and
- China trademark registration No. 43360367 DOUPAY, registered on November 28, 2020 in class 45 with an application date of December 26, 2019.
The disputed domain names were registered respectively on the dates indicated below:
Domain Name
Registration Date
(YYYY-MM-DD)
1.
bytedance.show
2021-10-11
2.
doupay.asia
2020-11-27
3.
doupay.city
2020-11-27
4.
doupay.club
2020-11-27
5.
doupay.cool
2020-11-27
6.
doupay.fun
2020-11-27
7.
doupay.gold
2020-11-27
8.
doupay.ink
2020-11-27
9.
doupay.life
2020-11-27
10.
doupay.link
2020-11-27
11.
doupay.live
2020-11-27
12.
doupay.plus
2020-11-27
13.
doupay.pro
2020-11-27
14.
doupay.pub
2020-11-27
15.
doupay.ren
2020-11-27
16.
doupay.run
2020-11-27
17.
doupay.show
2020-11-27
18.
doupay.space
2020-11-27
19.
doupay.tech
2020-11-27
20.
doupay.today
2020-11-27
21.
doupay.world
2020-11-27
22.
doupay.xyz
2020-11-27
23.
douyin.city
2021-08-10
24.
douyin.company
2020-10-16
25.
douyinpay.ink
2020-11-30
26.
douyinpay.link
2020-11-30
27.
douyinpay.live
2020-11-30
28.
douyinpay.plus
2020-11-30
29.
douyinpay.today
2020-11-30
30.
douyin.social
2021-08-05
31.
douyin.space
2020-10-05
32.
douyin.tech
2021-08-07
33.
douyin.zone
2020-12-30
The disputed domain names resolved to inactive web pages or web pages offering the respective disputed domain name for sale.
5. Parties’ Contentions A. ComplainantsThe Complainants contended as follows:
The disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to the BYTEDANCE, DOUYIN, and DOUPAY trademarks in which the Complainants have rights. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names. The Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names. The disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith.
The Complainants requested that the disputed domain names be transferred to the Complainants.
B. RespondentThe Respondent did not reply to the Complainants’ contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings 6.1 Language of ProceedingPursuant to the Rules, paragraph 11, unless otherwise agreed by the parties, the default language of the proceeding is the language of the registration agreement, subject to the authority of the panel to determine otherwise.
In this case, while the language of the registration agreements is Chinese, the Complainants requested that English be the language of the proceeding. Considering the Center has already sent Chinese-English dual language case-related communications to the Parties, including communications regarding the language of the proceeding, and thereby given the Respondent an opportunity to comment on or to oppose the Complainants’ request and arguments, and considering the Respondent’s default and lack of reaction after having been given a fair chance to comment or oppose, together with the fact that the disputed domain names consist of only Latin letters instead of Chinese characters, the Panel finds it would not be unfair to proceed in English as requested by the Complainants. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 4.5.1.
6.2 ConsolidationSince the two Complainants submit their evidence together and the Respondent’s conduct has affected the Complainants in a similar fashion, it is the Panel’s view that it is equitable and procedurally efficient to permit the consolidation of this Complaint filed by two Complainants against the single Respondent. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 4.11.1.
6.3 Substantive ElementsAccording to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainants must prove that:
(i) the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainants have rights; and
(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names; and
(iii) the disputed domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith.
A. Identical or Confusingly SimilarThe Complainants have registered BYTEDANCE, DOUYIN, and DOUPAY trademarks across various jurisdictions.
The disputed domain names incorporate the entirety of the Complainants’ BYTEDANCE, DOUYIN, and DOUPAY trademarks respectively. To be specific:
- the disputed domain name
- the disputed domain names
- the disputed domain names
As the BYTEDANCE, DOUYIN, and DOUPAY trademarks are respectively recognizable within the disputed domain names, the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainants’ BYTEDANCE, DOUYIN, and DOUPAY trademarks respectively. See WIPO Overview 3.0, sections 1.7 and 1.8.
The Panel therefore finds that the Complaint has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
B. Rights or Legitimate InterestsProving a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the often impossible 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. If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.1.
According to the Complaint, the Complainants have not licensed, authorized, or permitted the Respondent to register domain names incorporating the Complainants’ BYTEDANCE, DOUYIN, and DOUPAY trademarks.
The Respondent’s name “Ye Zhao Long (叶昭龙)” does not resemble the disputed domain names in any manner and the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names.
The Panel finds that the Complainants have made a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, and the Respondent failed to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating its rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. Moreover, the disputed domain names either consist of the Complainants’ trademarks in their entirety without modification or addition, or feature the additional term “pay” in five disputed domain names, thus carrying a risk of implied affiliation to the Complainants, contrary to the fact. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.5.1. Furthermore, noting the for-sale nature of a large portion of the disputed domain names, it is clear Respondent’s intent is to profit from the resale of the identical or confusingly similar disputed domain names, which does not amount to a bona fide offering nor noncommercial fair use.
The Panel therefore finds that the Complaint has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.
C. Registered and Used in Bad FaithThe Complainants have provided evidence that the Complainants and the BYTEDANCE, DOUYIN, and DOUPAY trademarks are well known worldwide.
Given the reputation of the Complainants and the BYTEDANCE, DOUYIN, and DOUPAY trademarks, and considering the fact that the Respondent registered dozens of disputed domain names that are exact match of the Complainants’ distinct trademarks BYTEDANCE, DOUYIN, and DOUPAY respectively, the Panel agrees with the contention of the Complainants that it is inconceivable that the Respondent registered the disputed domain names without knowledge of the Complainants’ trademarks at the time of the registration. The Panel concludes that the disputed domain names were registered in bad faith. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.1.2.
The Complainants have also provided evidence that the disputed domain names resolved to inactive web pages or web pages offering the respective disputed domain names for sale. This indicates that the Respondent’s intent in registering or acquiring the disputed domain names was to profit in some fashion from or otherwise exploit the Complainants’ trademarks. Accordingly, in light of the clear pattern of bad faith registrations targeting the Complainants, Respondent’s silence in the face of these proceedings, and the well-known nature of the trademarks, there is clear bad faith on the part of the Respondent. See WIPO Overview 3.0, sections 3.1.1 and 3.3.
The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith, and the Complaint has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.
7. DecisionFor the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain names,
James Wang
Sole Panelist
Date: March 2, 2022