Decision for dispute CAC-UDRP-108499

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 owns the following trademark registrations for HUAWEI:

• International registration, registration number 686846, registered on 12 November 1997 in class 9;
• International registration, registration number 1475662, registered on 21 February 2019 in classes 3, 14, 16, 18, 22, 24, 25, 26, and 31;
• International registration, registration number 1590923, registered on 3 March 2021 in classes 9, 10, 12, and 39;
• International registration, registration number 1226596, registered on 8 September 2014 in class 9;
• European Union Intellectual Property Office, registration number 009967291, registered on 17 February 2012; registered in classes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44 and 45; and
• European Union Intellectual Property Office, registration number 009967531, registered on 16 December 2011 in classes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44 and 45.

Founded in 1987 and headquartered in Shenzhen, China, the Complainant is a global provider of information and communications technology, infrastructure and smart devices. It employs over 180,000 people, operates in over 170 countries and maintains over 106 corporate offices worldwide. Its products and services include telecommunications network equipment, smartphones, laptops, wearable devices, cloud services, artificial intelligence solutions, enterprise networking technologies, and digital infrastructure solutions.

The Complainant owns numerous HUAWEI trademark registrations around the world, which predate the registration of the disputed domain name by several decades. It owns numerous domain names incorporating its HUAWEI trademark, including <huawei.com>, registered in 2000, which resolves to the Complainant’s official website.

The disputed domain name was registered by the Respondent on 24 June 2022.

The Complainant states that the disputed domain name incorporates a misspelled form of the Complainant’s HUAWEI trademark that omits the letters “ua” to shorten the mark to “hwei”, which is confusingly similar to its trademark.

The Complainant asserts that:

1. its trademark enjoys substantial reputation and recognition worldwide and that the Respondent must have known of the Complainant's rights when he registered the disputed domain name and in the absence of any license or permission from the Complainant to use its trademark, no actual or contemplated bona fide or legitimate use of the disputed domain name could reasonably be claimed;
2. the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and the Complainant has no relationship with the Respondent and has never authorised the Respondent to use its HUAWEI trademark or any variation of it; and
3. the disputed domain name resolves to an active website offering repair and related services for HUAWEI branded devices and Internet users encountering the disputed domain name are likely to assume that it refers to an official Huawei service provider.

The Complainant also asserts that the disputed domain name is being used for commercial purposes relating to the Complainant’s products. The Respondent’s website repeatedly refers to Huawei devices and services and prominently uses the Complainant’s HUAWEI word trademark as well as its figurative trademarks throughout the website content. The website prominently displays wording such as “Сервисный центр Huawei” (“Huawei Service Centre”) and offers diagnostics and repair of Huawei smartphones and other Huawei devices. The site also invites users to submit repair requests, check the status of repairs, and contact the service centre directly through the website interface.

The Claimant states that although the Respondent’s website contains a disclaimer stating that the service centre is not affiliated with Huawei, this statement appears only at the very bottom of the webpage in small font and is displayed after the main website content prominently referring to Huawei devices and services. In such circumstances, the disclaimer does not dispel the misleading impression created by the disputed domain name and the overall presentation of the website.

On 17 December 2025, the Complainant’s representative wrote to the Respondent regarding the disputed domain name and infringement of the Complainant’s trademark. The Complainant asserts that the Respondent’s registration and continued use of the disputed domain name demonstrate an attempt to exploit the reputation and goodwill associated with the Complainant’s HUAWEI trademark by diverting Internet traffic intended for the Complainant’s legitimate services to the Respondent’s website for commercial purposes.

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.

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires the Complainant to prove each of the following three elements:

1. the disputed domain is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;
2. the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and
3. the disputed domain name has been registered and used in bad faith.

Identical or confusingly similar

The Complainant’s rights in the HUAWEI trademark predate the registration of the disputed domain name by nearly 25 years.

The disputed domain name omits the letters “ua” to form the word “hwei”, which phonetically sounds the same as the Complainant’s HUAWEI mark. The website associated with the disputed domain name refers to the HUAWEI mark and the HUAWEI products and services, indicating that the Respondent intended the disputed domain name to be confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark to attract Internet users to his website. The addition of the hyphen and the word “recentre” does not avoid a finding of the confusing similarity.

The Panel finds that the requirements paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy are satisfied.

No rights or legitimate interests

The Complainant has provided evidence to show its rights in the HUAWEI mark and has established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name. The burden of proof now shifts to the Respondent to show that he has relevant rights.

The Respondent has not filed a Response, nor challenged any of the Complainant’s assertions. There is no evidence to indicate that the Respondent is commonly known as the disputed domain name. The Respondent is not authorised to use the Complainant’s trademark or an abbreviation of it in the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name resolves to a website that features the Complainant’s HUAWEI trademark and offers services in competition with the Complainant. This is not a bona fide offering of goods and services, nor a non-commercial or fair use. There is no evidence of any right or legitimate interests held by the Respondent.

Considering these factors, the Panel concludes that the Complainant has met the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

Registered and used in bad faith

Paragraph 4(b) (iv) of the Policy sets out that evidence of the registration and use the a domain name in bad faith includes where the Respondent uses the domain name to intentionally attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to his website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent’s website or of a product or service on Respondent’s website.

The Respondent’s website uses the Complainant’s HUAWEI trademark, refers to Huawei devices and services, and offers diagnostics and repair of HUAWEI smartphones and devices. The disclaimer on the website is not prominent and does little to dispel the false impression that the website is connected to the Complainant. The overall impression is that the Respondent knew of the Complainant and its trademark when he registered the disputed domain name and registered it and used it in bad faith to create a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark for commercial gain.

The Panel concludes that the Complainant has met the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.