The Complainant, founded in April 2010, was listed on the Main Board of the Hong Kong Stock Exchange on July 9, 2018 (1810.HK). The Complainant is a consumer electronics and smart manufacturing company, specializing in smartphones and smart hardware connected through an Internet of Things (IoT) platform. Over the past 13 years, the Complainant has grown into a leading global provider of innovative technology.<\/p>\n
The Complainant's product lineup includes smartphones, smart home devices, and lifestyle products such as smartwatches and electric scooters. It ranks third globally in smartphone market share, with over 594 million users and 618 million IoT-connected devices. In Q1 of Fiscal Year 2023, the Complainant reported revenue of RMB 59.5 billion and an adjusted net profit of RMB 3.2 billion.<\/p>\n
The Complainant maintains a robust online presence, engaging customers through its website <mi.com>, which it acquired on April 21, 2014. “SimilarWeb” ranks it the 1,038th most visited website globally and 79th in China, with 44.8 million unique visitors in March 2024. The Complainant also has substantial social media followings, including 15 million Facebook followers, 4.4 million Twitter followers, and 4.6 million Instagram followers.<\/p>\n
The disputed domain name was registered on July 12, 2021.<\/p>", "other_legal_proceedings": "
The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings which are pending or decided and which relate to the disputed domain name.<\/p>", "no_response_filed": "
COMPLAINANT:
(i) The Complainant holds rights in the XIAOMI trademark, as set forth in the \"Identification of Rights\" section above. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's XIAOMI mark, as it fully incorporates the mark with the mere addition of the geographic term “TN”, an abbreviation for Thái Nguyên, a city in Vietnam where the Complainant operates an authorized service center and production facility, along with the generic “.com” top-level domain (gTLD).<\/p>\n
(ii) The Respondent has no legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor has the Complainant authorized or licensed the Respondent to use the XIAOMI mark in any manner. Furthermore, the Respondent is not using the disputed domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services or for any legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, the Respondent is employing the disputed domain name to impersonate the Complainant and engage in phishing activities.<\/p>\n
(iii) The Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. The use of the disputed domain name is fraudulent, conducted in bad faith, and creates a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark. The website associated with the disputed domain name fails to disclose the Respondent’s identity or the lack of affiliation with the Complainant. The Respondent has registered the disputed domain name as part of a phishing scheme and has intentionally attempted to impersonate the Complainant by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark. The Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of the Complainant’s trademark rights.<\/p>\n
RESPONDENT:<\/p>\n
No administratively compliant Response has been filed.<\/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 Policy).<\/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 Policy).<\/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 Policy).<\/p>", "procedural_factors": "
The Panel notes that the Registration Agreement is written in Vietnamese, thereby making Vietnamese the default language of the proceedings. However, the Complainant has requested that the proceedings be conducted in English. Under UDRP Rule 11(a), the Panel has the discretion to determine the appropriate language of the proceedings, considering the particular circumstances of the case. See Section 4.5, WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition; see also Lovehoney Group Limited v. Yan Zhang, CAC 103917 (CAC August 17, 2021) (finding it appropriate to conduct the proceeding in English under Rule 11, despite the Registration Agreement designating Japanese as the required language).<\/p>\n
The Complainant presents the following arguments in support of its request:<\/p>\n
(i) The Complainant is unable to communicate in Vietnamese, and translating the Complaint would impose an unfair burden, cause undue delay, and disadvantage the Complainant in the adjudication of this matter.
(ii) Such delay would be particularly prejudicial given the obviously abusive nature of the disputed domain name and associated website. The Respondent has registered a confusingly similar domain name and is using the corresponding website for commercial gain, prominently displaying the Complainant’s “XIAOMI” trademark, images, products, and services, as found on the Complainant’s official website. This poses an ongoing risk to both the Complainant and unsuspecting consumers seeking the Complainant or its products.
(iii) The disputed domain name consists of Latin characters, making it accessible to English-speaking users.
(iv) The website associated with the disputed domain name features numerous English words, including “Smart TV - TV Box,” “Robot,” “Smart TV Xiaomi,” “massage,” “laptop,” “scooter,” “camera,” and “Xiaomi Vacuum Mop,” among others.
(v) The term “XIAOMI”, which is the dominant portion of the disputed domain name, has no specific meaning in the Vietnamese language.<\/p>\n
Pursuant to UDRP Rule 11(a), the Panel finds the Complainant’s arguments persuasive. After considering the specific circumstances of this case, and in the absence of a Response or any objection to the Complainant’s request regarding the language of proceedings, the Panel determines that the proceedings shall be conducted in English.<\/p>\n
The Panel is satisfied that all procedural requirements under the UDRP have been met, and there is no reason why a decision should not be issued.<\/p>", "decision": "Accepted", "panelists": [ "Mr. Ho-Hyun Nahm Esq." ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2025-02-12 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "
The Complainant owns the trademark XIAOMI through multiple international and national trademark registrations, including, inter alia<\/em>:<\/p>\n\n