Complainant states that it is “a consumer electronics and smart manufacturing company with smartphones and smart hardware connected by an Internet of Things platform at its core”; that it was founded in April 2010 and listed on the Main Board of the Hong Kong Stock Exchange on July 9, 2018; that its “range of products includes phones, smart home devices including vacuums or kitchen appliances, and lifestyle goods such as smart watches or electric scooters”; that its “strength is reflected in #3 global market share ranking in smartphones”; that “Complainant’s global user base exceeds 594 million, with an estimated 618 million IoT connected devices”; and that “[i]n the first quarter of Fiscal Year 2023, Complainant achieved a revenue of RMB 59.5 billion and an adjusted net profit of RMB 3.2 billion.”<\/p>\n
The Disputed Domain Name was created on August 12, 2002, and, according to Complainant, “Respondent is using the Disputed Domain Name to a website where it displays the official MI logo in relation to the sale of XIAOMI products, the authenticity of which Complainant is unable to ascertain at present.” An annex provided by Complainant confirms this.<\/p>", "other_legal_proceedings": "
The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings that are pending or decided and that relate to the Disputed Domain Name.<\/p>", "no_response_filed": "
Complainant contends, in relevant part, as follows:<\/p>\n
Paragraph 4(a)(i): Complainant states that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the XIAOMI Trademark because, inter alia, “Panels have consistently held that a disputed domain name that consists merely of a complainant’s trademark and an additional term that closely relates to and describes that complainant’s business is confusingly similar to that complainant’s trademarks”; “Respondent has added the generic, geographical term ‘Colombia’ to Complainant’s XIAOMI trademark, thereby making the Disputed Domain Name confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark”; “[t]he fact that such term is closely linked and associated with Complainant’s brand and trademark only serves to underscore and increase the confusing similarity between the Disputed Domain Name and the Complainant’s trademark” and “Colombia is one of the numerous countries where Complainant operates and promotes its wide range of products through its official distributors and partners.”<\/p>\n
Paragraph 4(a)(ii): Complainant states that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name because, inter alia, “Respondent is not sponsored by or affiliated with Complainant in any way”; “Complainant has not licensed, authorized, or permitted Respondent to use Complainant’s trademarks in any manner, including in domain names”; “the pertinent Whois information discloed by the registrar via CAC identifies the Registrant as ‘Fabian Dario Rada, Celulares Ti enda Radar’, which does not resemble the Disputed Domain Name in any manner”; “Respondent’s inclusion of the Complainant’s official MI logo on the Disputed Domain Name’s website as well as its favicon is a direct effort to take advantage of the fame and goodwill that Complainant has built in its brand, and Respondent is not only using the confusingly similar Disputed Domain Name, but is also imitating Complainant by displaying the Complainant’s logo”; “Respondent is using the Disputed Domain Name to direct internet users to a website that features the orange and white color scheme widely associated with Complainant, all as a means of deceiving internet users into believing that the website is associated with Complainant”; “Respondent is not an authorized reseller”; and Respondent has failed to meet the criteria for resellers as set forth in Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ASD, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2001-0903.<\/p>\n
Paragraph 4(a)(iii): Complainant states that the Disputed Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith because, inter alia, “the Disputed Domain Name is connected with an unauthorized commercial website offering XIAOMI products” and “Complainant’s logo is prominently displayed on the website, as well as on its favicons, contributing to create a confusing similarity with the Complainant” and, therefore, “Respondent is using the Disputed Domain Name to intentionally attempt to attract Internet users to a website for commercial gain, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of its website”; “Respondent’s use of the Disputed Domain Name constitutes a disruption of Complainant’s business and qualifies as bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶4(b)(iii) because the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s XIAOMI trademark and the Disputed Domain Name’s website is being used to offer Complainant’s goods(though Complainant is unable to ascertain the authenticity of the products on offer), without Complainant’s authorization or approval, as well as products of competitor brands”; “Respondent has ignored Complainant’s attempts to resolve this dispute outside of this administrative proceeding” by not responding to an email sent on April 18, 2024.<\/p>\n
Although no administratively compliant response has been filed, Respondent sent multiple emails in this proceeding, one stating: “I bought the domain in question and he told me that of course yes, that the domain was the property of whoever bought it. It is worth mentioning that in the same way I am no longer dedicated to the marketing of products, so I am willing to agree to your request to transfer.” In another email, Respondent stated: “I have already dismantled the website which is no longer operating.” Respondent also submitted two signed settlement forms, one of which stated that the Disputed Domain Name should be cancelled, the other of which stated that the Disputed Domain Name should be transferred to Complainant. The case file does not contain any indication from Complainant that it accepted either version of the settlement agreement and, instead, Complainant submitted a statement that “we would like to reinstate the current UDRP proceeding.”<\/p>", "rights": "
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 UDRP).<\/p>", "no_rights_or_legitimate_interests": "
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 UDRP).<\/p>", "bad_faith": "
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 UDRP).<\/p>", "procedural_factors": "
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.<\/p>\n
The Panel notes that although Respondent has consented to the transfer remedy requested by Complainant, Complainant has refused to accept the settlement agreement and instead has indicated that it wants this proceeding to continue. As set forth in section 4.10 of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), “a panel may in its discretion still find it appropriate to proceed to a substantive decision on the merits… where the complainant has not agreed to accept such consent and has expressed a preference for a recorded decision.”<\/p>", "decision": "Accepted", "panelists": [ "Douglas Isenberg" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2024-06-28 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "
Complainant states, and provides evidence to support, that it owns “various registrations for the trademark ‘XIAOMI’ on a worldwide basis,” including WIPO Reg. No. 1,177,611 (registered November 28, 2012), designating Colombia; WIPO Reg. No. 1,313,041 (registered April 14, 2016), designating Colombia; Chilean Reg. No. 1,115,836 (registered January 24, 2014); and U.S. Reg. No. 4,527,605 (registered May 13, 2014). These registrations are referred to herein as the “XIAOMI Trademark.”<\/p>", "decision_domains": { "xiaomicolombia.co": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }