{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-106859", "time_of_filling": "2024-09-11 14:09:41", "domain_names": [ "xiaomi.moscow" ], "case_administrator": " Iveta Špiclová (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "Xiaomi Inc" ], "complainant_representative": "Mr. Paddy Tam (CSC Digital Brand Services Group AB )", "respondent": [ "Artem Kuznecov " ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "

FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME IS IDENTICAL OR CONFUSINGLY SIMILAR TO A TRADEMARK OR SERVICE MARK IN WHICH THE COMPLAINANT HAS RIGHTS<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

The Complainant was founded in April 2010 and was listed on the Main Board of the Hong Kong Stock Exchange on July 9, 2018. The Complainant is a consumer electronics and smart manufacturing company with smartphones and smart hardware connected by an Internet of Things (IoT) platform at its core. The Complainant claims that it has grown to become one of the leading providers of innovative technology worldwide and its range of products includes phones, smart home devices including vacuums or kitchen appliances, and lifestyle goods such as smart watches or electric scooters.<\/p>\n

The Complainant alleges that its global user base exceeds 594 million, with an estimated 618 million IoT connected devices. In the first quarter of Fiscal Year 2023, it achieved a revenue of RMB 59.5 billion and an adjusted net profit of RMB 3.2 billion. The Complainant also refers to its strong online presence with 15 (fifteen) million “Facebook” followers and likes, 4.4 million “X” (former “Twitter”) followers and 4.6 million “Instagram” followers.<\/p>\n

The Complainant states that its “XIAOMI” and “MI” brands are well recognized and respected worldwide.<\/p>\n

The Complainant claims that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its “XIAOMI” trademarks as the second level domain consists solely of the Complainant’s trademark.<\/p>\n

Besides, the Complainant highlights that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name to resolve to a website that displays the Complainant’s official “MI” logo and purports to offer “XIAOMI” branded products for sale, the authenticity of which Complainant is unable to confirm at present. Such use suggests that the Respondent intended the disputed domain name to be confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark as a means of furthering consumer confusion, see sec. 1.15 of “WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition” (“WIPO Overview 3.0”).<\/p>\n

THE RESPONDENT HAS NO RIGHTS OR LEGITIMATE INTERESTS IN RESPECT OF THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

The Complainant asserts that the Respondent is not sponsored by or affiliated with the Complainant in any way. The Complainant has not licensed, authorized or permitted the Respondent to use its trademarks in any manner, including in domain names. The Respondent is identified as an individual from Russia unrelated to the disputed domain name in any manner.<\/p>\n

The Complainant points out that the Respondent is not making a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate, noncommercial fair use of the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name resolves to a website that features Complainant’s official “MI” logo as well as images of its “XIAOMI” branded products. This indicates that the Respondent intends to take advantage of the fame and goodwill of the “XIAOMI” brand.<\/p>\n

The Complainant alleges that the Respondent failed to comply with the “OKI Data” test:<\/p>\n

- Firstly, the Complainant is unable to ascertain the authenticity of the goods offered at the disputed domain name’s website and the Respondent also offers for sale goods of the Complainant’s competitors such as “Realme”, “OnePlus” and “Oppo” and<\/p>\n

- Secondly, there is no visible disclaimer on the website to clarify that the website is not endorsed or sponsored by the Complainant to explain the non-existing relationship with the trademark holder. Rather, the Respondent’s use of the official “MI” logo throughout its website and the favicon is likely to cause consumer confusion about the source of the disputed domain name and its website.<\/p>\n

Besides, the Complainant notes that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name after Complainant’s trademark registrations with WIPO and the USPTO.<\/p>\n

By the time the Respondent registered the disputed domain name, the Complainant already had a worldwide reputation in its trademark. Therefore, the disputed domain name carries a high risk of implied affiliation with the Complainant which cannot be considered a fair use.<\/p>\n

THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME WAS REGISTERED AND BEING USED IN BAD FAITH<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

The Complainant’s submissions on the bad faith element can be summarized as follows:<\/p>\n