ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION GRABTAXI HOLDINGS PTE. LTD. v. Lê Thái Thĩa Case No. D2025-2827 1. The Parties The Complainant is GRABTAXI HOLDINGS PTE. LTD., Singapore, represented by BMVN International LLC, Viet Nam. The Respondent is Lê Thái Thĩa, Viet Nam. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name is registered with iNET Software Company Limited (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 17, 2025. On July 18, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On July 22, 2025, 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 (GRAB TAXI NOVALAND TIEN THANH)) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on July 25, 2025, 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 July 28, 2025. 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 August 6, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was August 26, 2025. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on August 26, 2025.
page 2 The Center appointed Jacob Changjie Chen as the sole panelist in this matter on August 28, 2025. 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, founded in 2012 in Malaysia, operates in more than 480 cities across 8 countries in Southeast Asia including Viet Nam, Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand, Indonesia, Philippines, Cambodia and Myanmar. Through its mobile super-app and platform, the Complainant connects consumers with millions of drivers and merchants by providing transportation, logistics, food delivery, courier services, online shopping, home cleaning and repair services, financial services and e-payments and enterprise services. The Complainant is the owner of multiple trademark registrations in Viet Nam, including International trademark GRABTAXI Registration No. 1213411 registered on May 20, 2014 in class 39, Viet Nam Trademark GRAB Registration No. 40318225000 registered on April 16, 2019 in classes 9, 38 and 39, and Viet Nam Trademark GRAB Registration No. 40331702000 registered on September 30, 2019 in classes 9, 38 and 39. The disputed domain name was registered on March 28, 2023, and is inactive at the time of this Decision. It used to resolve to a “GRAB TAXI” website prominently displaying the Complainant’s GRAB TAXI trademark and offering transportation services in Vietnamese. 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. Notably, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark to which the Complainant has the right. The addition of the geographical terms “tienthanh” and “phanthiet” do not suffice to prevent the confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s trademarks. The Complainant further contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The Complainant has no prior official connection with the Respondent, and the Respondent has not been authorized by the Complainant to use its mark within the context of the disputed domain name. The website associated with the disputed domain name fails to accurately represent that there is no relationship between the Complainant and Respondent and creates an undue association with the Complainant. The Complainant finally contends that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Respondent, who runs business in the same industry and offers the same services as those of the Complainant, must have had prior knowledge of the Complainant’s trademarks before registering the disputed domain name. The Respondent is attempting to attract Internet users to its website for commercial gain and profit from the resulting consumer confusion that the disputed domain name relates to the Complainant. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
page 3 6. Discussion and Findings 6.1 Preliminary Issues: Language of the Proceeding The language of the Registration Agreement for the disputed domain name is Vietnamese. Pursuant to the Rules, paragraph 11(a), in the absence of an agreement between the parties, or unless specified otherwise in the registration agreement, the language of the administrative proceeding shall be the language of the registration agreement. The Complaint was filed in English. The Complainant requested that the language of the proceeding be English for several reasons, including the fact that the disputed domain name displays various contents in English and the services offered are related to a non-Vietnamese entity. The Respondent did not make any specific submissions with respect to the language of the proceeding. In exercising its discretion to use a language other than that of the registration agreement, 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 (see WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 4.5.1). Having considered all the matters above, the Panel determines under paragraph 11(a) of the Rules that the language of the proceeding shall be English. 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 trademark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition, (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.7. The Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trademark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1. The Panel finds the mark is recognizable 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 “tienthanh” and “phanthiet” which are geographical locations in Viet Nam may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds the addition of such terms do 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 disputed domain name is using the Complainant’s GRAB TAXI and GRAB trademarks to offer competing services with those of the Complainant, which is very likely to confuse Internet users as to the source of services provided through the website. The Respondent is trying to falsely suggest sponsorship or endorsement by the Complainant when actually the Respondent has been not authorized nor permitted to do so. Accordingly, the use of the disputed domain name by the Respondent can never confer any rights or legitimate interests in the current case. 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. 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 disputed domain name consists of the Complainant’s two trademarks and used to resolve to a website providing services competing with those of the Complainant. It is thus inconceivable that the Respondent could have registered the disputed domain name without knowledge of the Complainant and its trademarks. Registration in bad faith is established. By choosing the Complainant’s famous trademarks and combining them with the local geographical locations in the disputed domain name, the Respondent is deliberately attempting to misrepresent itself as being affiliated with or endorsed by the Complainant in the local markets. Such use of the disputed domain name shows that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s marks, which constitutes bad faith under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. Having reviewed the record, the Panel finds the Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name constitutes bad faith under the Policy. The Panel finds that the Complainant has established the third element of the Policy.
page 5 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. /Jacob Changjie Chen/ Jacob Changjie Chen Sole Panelist Date: September 15, 2025
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy