Decision for dispute CAC-UDRP-108140

The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings which are pending or decided and which relate to the disputed domain name.

The Complainant holds multiple trademark registrations that include or consist of the term “QWEN” across various jurisdictions, including Hong Kong, the United Kingdom, the United Arab Emirates, Singapore, the Philippines, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia and the European Union. Additionally, several applications are currently pending in other countries and regions. These registrations cover a range of goods and services, notably under Nice Classes 9 and 42.

The trademark portfolio of the Complainant includes the following registrations:

• Hong Kong TM No. 306741423 – QWEN – Nice Cl. 9, 42, registered on 27 November 2024;
• United Kingdom TM No. UK00004131074 – QWEN – Nice Cl. 9, 42, registered on 28 February 2025;
• EU TM No. 019113462 – QWEN – Nice Cl. 9, 42, registered on 2 August 2025;
• Philippines TM No. PH4202400532848 – QWEN – Nice Cl. 9, 42, registered on 18 January 2025;
• Malaysian TM No. TM2024038102 - QWEN – Nice Cl. 9, 42, registered on 5 December 2024;
• Singaporean TM No. 40202428254S - - QWEN – Nice Cl. 9, 42, registered on 15 May 2025;
• Singaporean TM No. 40202407909R - TONGYI QWEN – Nice Cl. 9, 42, registered on 20 September 2024;
• Indonesia No. DID2024129082 – QWEN – Nice Cl. 9, 42, registered on 10 June 2025;
• United Arab Emirates TM No. 422747 - TONGYI QWEN - Nice Cl. 9, registered on 23 December 2024;
• Thailand TM No. 251127382 - TONGYI QWEN - Nice Cl. 9, registered on 5 September 2025;
• Philippines TM No. PH4202400513563 – TONGYI QWEN – Nice Cl. 9, 42, registered on 30 September 2024;
• United Kingdom TM No. UK00004050857 – TONGYI QWEN – Nice Cl. 9, 42, registered on 2 August 2024;
• Malaysian TM No. TM2024013799 - TONGYI QWEN – Nice Cl. 9, 42, registered on 11 December 2024;
• United Arab Emirates TM No. 422749 - TONGYI QWEN - Nice Cl. 42, registered on 23 December 2024;
• EU TM No. 019113462 – TONGYI QWEN – Nice Cl. 9, 42, registered on 21 November 2024;
• China TM No. 75899160 - TONGYI QWEN – Nice Cl. 9, registered on 21 May 2025;
• China Application No. 75911077 – QWEN – Nice Cl. 42, application of 20 December 2023;
• China Application No. 75910432 – QWEN – Nice Cl. 9, application of 20 December 2023.

The Complainant is Alibaba Innovation Private Limited, a company belonging to the Alibaba Group, a leading Chinese multinational conglomerate founded on June 28, 1999, in Hangzhou, Zhejiang. The Group operates globally across a wide range of sectors including e-commerce, retail, Internet, and technology. It offers consumer-to-consumer (C2C), business-to-consumer (B2C), and business-to-business (B2B) sales services through both Chinese and international marketplaces. In addition, the Group provides services in digital media and entertainment, logistics, and cloud computing. Alibaba Innovation Private Limited is part of this global ecosystem, which also includes entities such as Alibaba (China) Co., Ltd. and Alibaba.com Corporation.

Alibaba is one of the world’s largest companies in the fields of retail and e-commerce and is active in over 190 countries. In 2020, the company was ranked as the fifth-largest artificial intelligence enterprise globally. Through its fintech subsidiary, Ant Group, Alibaba also operates as the world's second-largest financial services provider after Visa. Furthermore, it is recognized as one of the most prominent venture capital and investment firms worldwide.

Alibaba operates its online marketplace across all major segments: B2B (Alibaba.com), C2C (Taobao), and B2C (Tmall). The Group has also significantly expanded into the media, entertainment and artificial intelligence sectors, with revenues in these areas growing at a triple-digit rate year over year. During the 2018 edition of China’s Singles’ Day – the world’s largest online and offline shopping event – Alibaba set a global sales record.

As part of its AI strategy, Alibaba has developed QWEN, a family of large language models (LLMs) designed for multilingual understanding, reasoning, and enterprise applications. These models are accessible via Alibaba Cloud and form the foundation of the Group’s generative AI ecosystem.

The Complainant has systematically promoted its QWEN models through a series of public releases, both internationally and domestically. Between 2023 and 2025, Alibaba Cloud issued numerous official announcements – via its global press room, Alzilla, and Chinese platforms such as Baidu – highlighting the open-sourcing, technical upgrades, and enterprise adoption of Qwen models. These releases demonstrate a coordinated communication strategy aimed at establishing QWEN as a leading open source. Among various countries, QWEN has also gained significant visibility in Russia, as evidenced by multiple articles published by well-known local tech media outlets such as IncRussia, Habr, VC.ru, and 3DNews, which extensively covered its multimodal capabilities and competitive positioning.

The QWEN model has achieved top-tier recognition across several international and Chinese AI benchmarks, including OpenCompass, the Open LLM Leaderboard, Compass Arena, and Chatbot Arena. Specifically, QWEN-72B, QWEN2-72B, and QWEN2.5 consistently ranked first or among the top performers in evaluations published between 2023 and 2024, with scores demonstrating superior performance compared to other open-source models. These results have been widely documented by official sources and leading technological media outlets.

Alibaba has actively showcased its QWEN models at major industry events, including the APSARA Conference held annually in Hangzhou. The QWEN models were exhibited in the 2023, 2024, and 2025 editions of the conference, as evidenced by official event schedules and photographic documentation. These exhibitions serve as further proof of the public disclosure and promotion of the QWEN models to both domestic and international audiences. In addition to its global promotional efforts, Alibaba’s QWEN brand has also been showcased at major international technology events such as at the recent World Artificial Intelligence Conference (WAIC) 2025 in Shanghai, QWEN was presented alongside other leading AI innovations during sessions that included the BRICS Win-Win Cooperation Forum, which welcomed representatives from Russia. This demonstrates QWEN’s visibility in forums fostering cross-border collaboration and its relevance to markets beyond China.

The Complainant’s AI model family was originally launched under the name “Tongyi Qianwen”, which is the Chinese designation of the technology. In international and technical contexts, the Complainant adopted the abbreviated name “QWEN” to refer to the same suite of large language models (LLMs) and multimodal models (MLLMs). This equivalence is explicitly confirmed in official communications by Alibaba Cloud, which states that “QWEN (also known as Tongyi Qianwen)” refers to the same proprietary AI model family. Accordingly, the term “QWEN” has become the globally recognized identifier of the Complainant’s technology.

The Complainant registered the domain name QWEN.NET on March 18, 2023, followed by QWEN.AI on August 27, 2023, which resolves to the Complainant’s official website https://qwen.ai/. Consequently, within the broader domain of multimodal AI technologies QWEN has emerged as a distinctive identifier closely associated with the Complainant’s brand and product suite.

The Complainant has consistently promoted the “QWEN” denomination across major online platforms, including the official website https://qwen.ai/, as well as verified accounts on leading social media and developer environments such as GitHub, Hugging Face, X, Discord, or LinkedIn.

According to the Registrar Verification, the Disputed Domain Name was acquired by the Respondent on January 30, 2025, even though its original registration dates back to February 6, 2024 without authorization. It currently resolves to the website https://qwen.org/ that makes unauthorized reference to the Complainant’s “QWEN” model series. Given that the website offers services in the same field – namely AI-based technology – this use is likely to mislead consumers and create confusion regarding a potential affiliation with the Complainant.

The Complainant contends that the requirements of the Policy have been met and that the disputed domain name should be transferred to it.
No administratively compliant Response has been filed.

The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy).

The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the Respondent to have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy).

The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy).

The Panel is satisfied that all procedural requirements under UDRP were met and there is no other reason why it would be inappropriate to provide a decision.

According to Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant is required to prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that the disputed domain name should be transferred or cancelled:

(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark 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.

The Panel has examined the evidence available to it and has come to the following conclusion concerning the satisfaction of the three elements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy in these proceedings:

EARLIER RIGHTS

The Complainant has registered numerous trademarks for "QWEN" and names including the letter sequence “QWEN”, a number of which pre-date the registration of the disputed domain name <QWEN.ORG> by the Respondent.

COMPARISON WITH THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

In accordance with Paragraph 4(a)(i), the Panel holds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks. 

The finding is based on the settled practice in evaluating the existence of a likelihood of confusion of:

1. disregarding the top-level suffix in the domain names (i.e. “.ORG") in the comparison; and
2. finding that the remaining letter sequence “QWEN” is identical to the trademarks registered by the Complainant consisting of the letter sequence “QWEN” as a standalone trademark. The domain name is confusingly similar to the rights of the Complainant. 

The disputed domain name is therefore found to be confusingly similar to the earlier rights in the name "QWEN", and the Panel concludes that the Complainant has satisfied the requirement under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.

NO RIGHTS OR LEGITIMATE INTERESTS

The onus to make out a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests is placed on the Complainant. However, once such a prima facie case is made, the Respondent carries the burden of demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. If the Respondent fails to do so, the Complainant is deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Complainant and the Respondent have not had any previous relationship. The Complainant has never granted the Respondent any rights to use the "QWEN" trademark in any form, including in the disputed domain name. There is no evidence before the Panel indicating that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name.

The Respondent is not making a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor is it engaged in any legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the disputed Domain Name. On the contrary, the Respondent is using the disputed Domain Name to promote AI-related services under the “QWEN” name, without any disclaimer or clarification of its lack of affiliation. This conduct misleads users, increases the likelihood of confusion, and prevents the Complainant from securing a domain name aligned with its brand identity and reputation.

The Respondent acquired the disputed Domain Name on January 30, 2025, after the Complainant had filed and obtained the registration of multiple trademark applications in China and other countries, including “QWEN”, already submitted on 20 December 2023. The Complainant had begun using domain names incorporating the “QWEN” mark more than a year prior to the Respondent’s acquisition, further evidencing prior public and commercial use.

The timing of the Respondent’s acquisition – occurring after both the trademark filings and registrations, as well as the public release of the QWEN AI series – clearly indicates that the Complainant’s marks had already acquired distinctiveness and recognition in the relevant industry. Past panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity (e.g. phishing, scams, unauthorized account access/hacking, impersonation/passing off, or other types of fraud) can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. 

The Panel therefore concludes that the Complainant’s prima facie case has not been refuted and that rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy) have been established. The Complainant has therefore also satisfied the requirement under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

BAD FAITH

The Panel finds that the Complainant has established that the disputed domain name was registered by the Respondent and is being used by the Respondent in bad faith.

The Complainant has consistently and publicly promoted its QWEN AI models across major international and domestic platforms since 2023, including through official announcements, benchmark rankings, and industry events. The QWEN models have achieved top-tier recognition in global AI evaluations and have been prominently featured at conferences such as APSARA and World Artificial Intelligence Conference (WAIC) 2025. This is further reinforced by the fact that the Respondent appears to be located in Russia – a market where Qwen had already achieved notable visibility through coverage by leading technology media. The latest version of Qwen, including Qwen 2.5 and Qwen 3, offered full support for the Russian language and Qwen was showcased at major international technology events, such as the World Artificial Intelligence Conference (WAIC) 2025 in Shanghai, during sessions like the BRICS Win-Win Cooperation Forum attended by Russian representatives.

The disputed Domain Name resolves to a website where the Complainant’s trademark is prominently and unduly displayed, providing evidence that the Respondent has acquired the domain registration in order to use it to copy the Complainant’s brand since the Respondent deliberately sought to associate its own offerings with it. Such conduct clearly supports the finding of bad faith registration and uses under the Policy. Moreover, the Respondent was evidently aware of the Complainant’s well-established reputation when it acquired the disputed Domain Name on January 30, 2025, at a time when the QWEN trademark had already achieved significant global recognition and visibility across multiple markets, including Russia.

The term “QWEN” is not a generic or commonly used word in English, nor does it possess any independent meaning outside its association with the Complainant’s AI model series. The adoption of “QWEN” as the English-language designation for this product series was widely publicized and has become closely linked to the Complainant’s technological offerings. The Respondent acquired a domain name composed exclusively of this distinctive term shortly after the Complainant’s trademark filings and public launch which strongly indicates a deliberate attempt to associate with the Complainant’s brand and benefit from the growing recognition.

In light of this extensive and well-documented public exposure and considering the linguistic and commercial context in which it operates, it is inconceivable to assume that the Respondent acquired the disputed Domain Name without intending to target the Complainant. Any, even the most basic search using a search engine such as Google would have provided information about the trademark registrations and use of the name by the Complainant.

The Respondent is using the website associated with the disputed Domain Name to offer access to the Complainant’s QWEN AI model services, without any authorization or affiliation. This conduct goes beyond mere reference: it demonstrates a clear and deliberate attempt to associate with the Complainant’s brand, leveraging its reputation and technological credibility to attract users.

The use of the Complainant’s trademarks on the website, combined with the offering of services under the “QWEN” name, confirms that the Respondent is not only aware of the Complainant’s business, but is actively seeking to benefit from its goodwill. Furthermore, the fact that the website is presented in English is a clear indication that the Respondent intends to target an international audience. Such behavior is incompatible with any claim to rights or legitimate interest in the disputed Domain Name and further supports the conclusion that the Respondent’s registration and use of the Domain Name were carried out in bad faith.

In the present case, the Complainant’s QWEN AI model series had already been publicly launched and actively promoted prior to the Respondent’s registration of the disputed Domain Name. The Complainant had filed multiple trademark applications, including for “QWEN” and “TONGYI QWEN”, and had begun using domain names incorporating the QWEN mark well before the Respondent’s acquisition. These actions formed part of a coordinated branding strategy that had gained visibility across both domestic and international markets.

The Respondent’s decision to acquire a domain name consisting solely of the Complainant’s distinctive mark – without any credible explanation or legitimate interest – strongly suggests that the acquisition was not coincidental, but rather a calculated attempt to benefit from the Complainant’s growing reputation.

Taken together, these circumstances clearly demonstrate that the Respondent acquired and is using the disputed Domain Name in bad faith, with the intent to exploit the Complainant’s brand recognition and goodwill. The factual context leaves little doubt that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s activities and deliberately sought to benefit from its commercial success.

The Panel notes that the Respondent has previously been involved as a Respondent in the WIPO Case No. D2022-3676, Johnson & Johnson v. Sergey Morozov, concerning the registration and use of a domain name infringing a well-known trademark, which further demonstrates a pattern of abusive conduct under the Policy and a Reverse Whois search has shown that the Respondent has registered multiple domain names. This pattern of registering domains associated with popular tools or names evidences a systematic approach to acquiring domain names for commercial gain, without any legitimate rights or interests. Such conduct falls squarely within paragraph 4(b)(ii) of the Policy, which identifies a pattern of abusive registrations as an indicator of bad faith.

Based on the above, the Panel concludes that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy). The Complainant has therefore also satisfied the requirements under paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.