The Complainant is a large manufacturer of cleaning appliances, including the development, manufacture and sales of home service robots. It has one of the world's single most complete line of home service robots, and is a contender to be a global pioneer in the home service robot industry, as well as the industry standard setter. In the first meeting of the International Working Group on Performance Testing and Evaluation Standards for Home Service Robots held in Suzhou, China in 2013, the Complainant, was the convener of the Working Group, and led the formulation of international standards including Germany, the Netherlands, Italy and other member countries, making it the first time in the world to have a complete definition of home robots.<\/p>\n
The Complainant is the first company in the industry to obtain accreditation as a laboratory in China and has the world's only and most complete product line of home service robots. The Complainant's main business scope includes the research and development, design, production and sales of intelligent household equipment such as home service robots, cleaning small home appliances and related parts, and its products are mainly ground cleaning robots, air purification robots, automatic window cleaning robots, intelligent home service robots, B2B commercial field commercial service robots and solar panel cleaning robots.<\/p>\n
The Complainant has been in the service robot industry for 24 years, and has transformed from a visionary startup into a global corporation with a global market share in key markets. The Complainant’s ECOVACS robotics are now being used in over 145 countries and regions around the world, such as Australia, Japan, Spain, Switzerland, France, Canada, Czech Republic, Poland, Germany, Iran and Malaysia. Since 2015, The Complainant's DEEBOT sweeping robot products have been a market leader in China. According to WSJ- Markets, the Complainant's annual revenue in 2022 was RMB 15,236 million.<\/p>\n
On May 28, 2018, the Complainant was listed on the Shanghai Stock Exchange. The Complainant's ECOVACS trademark was recognized as a well-known trademark by a court in China in 2019.<\/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": "
The Complainant argued that: it owns registered ECOVACS and DEEBOT trademarks in multiple jurisdictions, registered long before the disputed domain name was created. The disputed domain name ecovacsdeebot.com fully incorporates both trademarks, making it identical or confusingly similar. That the Respondent is neither authorized nor affiliated, has no trademark rights in ECOVACS or DEEBOT, and is not a distributor. The Respondent was aware of ECOVACS and DEEBOT’s fame, intentionally targeted the brand, created a site relevant to Complainant’s business without disclosing the relationship, and sought to attract customers for commercial gain through confusion.<\/p>\n
The Respondent argues that it operates a legal retail business in Vietnam, selling genuine Ecovacs products purchased from authorized distributors, issuing legal VAT invoices. He removed official logos\/images, added a clear disclaimer stating it is not the official Ecovacs site, and clarified status as a local retailer. That he registered the domain for legitimate retail promotion, not to mislead or abuse the trademarks. He was open to further adjustments if requested, and if a transfer is ordered, he requests a 15–30 day transition period. That he should be allowed to keep the domain or provide transition time; emphasizes good faith, legal operations, and compliance with IP laws.<\/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": "
Language of Proceedings<\/strong><\/p>\n The language of the Registration Agreement for the disputed domain name is Vietnamese. Pursuant to the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules“), paragraph 11(a), in the absence of an agreement between the parties, or unless specified otherwise in the registration agreement, the language of the administrative proceeding shall be the language of the registration agreement.<\/p>\n The Complaint was filed in English. The Complainant requested that the language of the proceedings be English as it is a neutral language since the Respondent’s native language is Vietnamese, while the Complainant’s native language is Chinese. Having the proceedings in English, an international common language, is fair to both parties and would not favour either party due to language issues. The Complainant also translated the Complaint and most of the attachments into Vietnamese to facilitate the Respondent. Further, according to the rules of the CAC, all documents, including communications made as part of the proceedings, shall be made in the language of the proceedings or in English.<\/p>\n The Respondent did not make any submissions with respect to the language of the proceeding. <\/p>\n In exercising its discretion to use a language other than that of the registration agreement, the Panel has to exercise such discretion judicially in the spirit of fairness and justice to both parties, taking into account all relevant circumstances of the case, including matters such as the parties’ ability to understand and use the proposed language, time and costs (see WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 4.5.1).<\/p>\n Having considered the circumstances of this case including the neutrality of English as a common language between parties, and the fact that the Complainant has translated the relevant documents into Vietnamese for the Respondent, the Panel determines under paragraph 11(a) of the Rules that the language of the proceeding shall be English. There does not appear to be any reasons which warrant a delay and additional expense in ordering the Complainant to translate the Complaint.<\/p>\n The Panel is satisfied that all other procedural requirements under UDRP were met and there is no other reason why it would be inappropriate to provide a decision.<\/p>",
"decision": "Accepted",
"panelists": [
"Jonathan Agmon"
],
"date_of_panel_decision": "2025-08-14 00:00:00",
"informal_english_translation": " The Complainant is the owner of various trademark registrations, including the following:<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n The Complainant owns and operates its primary domain name <ecovacs.com>, registered on August 8, 2006.<\/p>\n The disputed domain name was registered on December 4, 2023, and at the time of filing the Complaint, it resolved to a website displaying the Complainant’s ECOVACS and DEEBOT trademarks, and offering goods for sale which compete with the Complainant’s own offerings.<\/p>\n The Respondent is Vu Van Tien of 232 Pham Van Dong Str, Co Nhue 1 Ward, Bac Tu Liem District, Hanoi City, Viet Nam, Hanoi, 100000, Viet Nam.<\/p>",
"decision_domains": {
"ecovacsdeebot.com": "TRANSFERRED"
},
"panelist": null,
"panellists_text": null
}\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n