ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION TikTok Ltd. v. ThopTV Case No. D2024-0093 1. The Parties The Complainant is TikTok Ltd., United Kingdom, represented by CSC Digital Brand Services Group AB, Sweden. The Respondent is ThopTV, Pakistan. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name 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 10, 2024. On January 11, 2024, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On January 11, 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 12, 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 January 16, 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 January 17, 2024. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was February 6, 2024. The Respondent sent email communications to the Center on January 29, 2024, and February 1 and 23, 2024. On February 12, 2024, the Center notified the parties of the Commencement of Panel Appointment Process.
page 2 The Center appointed Kaya Köklü as the sole panelist in this matter on February 14, 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, which operates various popular online content platforms. The Complainant is the owner of the famous trademarks TIKTOK and TIK TOK, which are registered and used around the world. (Annex 1 to the Complaint). Among others, the Complainant is the owner of the United States of America Trademark Registrations No. 5653614 for TIK TOK, registered on January 15, 2019, and No. 5981212 for TIKTOK, registered on February 11, 2020. The Complainant operates its primary website at “www.tiktok.com”. The Respondent is reportedly located in Pakistan. The disputed domain name was registered on April 19, 2023. The screenshots, as provided by the Complainant, show that the disputed domain name previously resolved to a website purportedly offering a “specialized version of the famous social media” application for download in order to get “access to content that is not legally available for streaming on the Internet” (Annex 3 to the Complaint). The respective application was literally promoted as “a popular choice for those seeking adult-oriented content”. Furthermore, the website associated with the disputed domain name was prominently using the Complainant’s trademarks, including its official logo, without any prominent and accurate disclaimer describing the (lack of) relationship between the Parties. At the time of the Decision, the disputed domain name does not resolve to an active website anymore. 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. B. Respondent The Respondent did not formally reply to the Complainant’s contentions. However, the Center received informal email communications on January 29, February 1 and 23, 2024 from the Respondent. All three email communications had virtually the same content, essentially stating (in broken English language) that as long as the disputed domain name is locked, he cannot “make money”. 6. Discussion and Findings According to paragraphs 14 and 15(a) of the Rules, the Panel shall decide the Complaint in accordance with the Policy, the Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable and on the basis of the Complaint where no substantive response has been submitted. In accordance with paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove that each of the three following elements is satisfied:
page 3 (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark 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. Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy states that the Complainant bears the burden of proving that all these requirements are fulfilled, even if the Respondent has not substantively replied to the Complainant’s contentions. Stanworth Development Limited v. E Net Marketing Ltd., WIPO Case No. D2007-1228. However, concerning the uncontested information provided by the Complainant, the Panel may, where relevant, accept the provided reasonable factual allegations in the Complaint as true. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”) section 4.3. It is further noted that the Panel has taken note of the WIPO Overview 3.0 and, where appropriate, will decide consistent with the consensus views captured therein. 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 trademark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7. The Complainant has shown rights in respect of the TIK TOK and TIKTOK trademarks for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1. The entirety of the Complainant’s trademarks is reproduced within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7. Although the addition of other terms and numbers, here “18” and “pro”, may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds the addition of such terms and numbers 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. 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
page 4 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. There is no particular indication in the case that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor that there are any circumstances or activities that would establish the Respondent’s rights or legitimate interests therein. In addition, the Panel notes that the nature of the disputed domain name, which comprises the entirety of the Complainant’s trademarks and effectively impersonates or at least suggests sponsorship or endorsement by the Complainant, carries a risk of implied affiliation or association with the Complainant. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.5.1. 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. 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. In the present case, the Panel notes that the Respondent must have had the Complainant and its TIKTOK and TIK TOK trademarks in mind when registering the disputed domain name. Given the confusing similarity of the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s trademarks, the Panel is convinced that the Respondent has deliberately chosen the disputed domain name to target and mislead Internet users. After having reviewed the Complainant’s screenshots of the website associated with the disputed domain name, where a “specialized version” of the Complainant’s famous application for download is purportedly offered to gain access to adult content while prominently using the Complainant’s trademarks and official logos (Annex 3 to the Complaint), the Panel is convinced that the Respondent intentionally tries to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant and its TIKTOK and TIK TOK trademarks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the Respondent’s website. The Panel finds that such use of the disputed domain name falls into paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. The fact that the disputed domain name no longer resolves to an active website, does not prevent a finding of bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.3. 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 be transferred to the Complainant. /Kaya Köklü/ Kaya Köklü Sole Panelist Date: February 28, 2024
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy