{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-108328", "time_of_filling": "2026-01-19 10:48:02", "domain_names": [ "wan2-6.com" ], "case_administrator": "Olga Dvořáková (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "Alibaba Innovation Private Limited " ], "complainant_representative": "Convey srl", "respondent": [ "Jian Liu" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "

The Complainant is Alibaba Innovation Private Limited, a company affiliated with the Alibaba Group, a leading Chinese multinational conglomerate founded in 1999. The Group operates globally across sectors including, inter alia<\/em>, e-commerce, cloud computing, and artificial intelligence. It is recognized as one of the world’s largest retail and AI enterprises, operating major platforms such as ALIBABA.COM, TAOBAO, and TMALL.<\/span><\/p>\n

As part of its AI strategy, the Complainant developed WAN, a family of open-source multimodal video‑generation models. The brand evolved from the TONGYI WANXIANG model to WANX, and ultimately rebranded as WAN in February 2025. Recent iterations, specifically WAN 2.5 and WAN 2.6, have significantly advanced the Complainant's capabilities in high-quality video content creation.<\/span><\/p>\n

The Complainant registered domain names such as <wanxai.com> and <wan.video>, which resolve to its official website https:\/\/wan.video\/. Accordingly, the name WAN has become associated with the Complainant’s goods. The Complainant has made extensive use of the WAN mark on its website and on platforms such as GitHub and Hugging Face.<\/span><\/p>\n

The disputed domain name was registered on November 30, 2025. The disputed domain name initially resolved to the website, which promoted the Complainant’s products, namely “WAN 2.5” and “WAN 2.6,” described as leading AI video generation models. The website used the Complainant’s trademarks within its content, falsely implying a connection or origin. Once the disputed domain name redirected to a third-party website where the Complainant’s products are displayed. Currently the disputed domain name resolves to an error page.<\/span><\/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:<\/span><\/p>\n

The Complainant contends that the requirements of the Policy have been met and that the disputed domain name should be transferred to it.<\/span><\/p>\n

(i) The Complainant holds rights in the trademark WAN, as set forth in the \"Identification of Rights\" section above. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark WAN, as it incorporates the mark in its entirety, followed only by the minus\/dash symbol “-” and the numbers “2” and “6”, which directly correspond to the name of Alibaba’s AI video generation model “Wan 2.6” and the “.com” gTLD.<\/span><\/p>\n

(ii) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The Respondent is neither licensed to use the Complainant’s trademarks nor commonly known by the disputed domain name. Furthermore, the Respondent is not engaged in any bona fide<\/em> offering of goods or services or any legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, the Respondent uses the disputed domain name to unauthorizedly promote and sell the Complainant’s WAN AI video generation services, explicitly referencing the Complainant’s products. The Respondent’s website mimics the Complainant’s visual identity without any disclaimer, thereby misleading Internet users regarding the source of the website. The disputed domain name, registered on November 30, 2025, incorporates the Complainant’s \"WAN\" mark with the numbers \"2\" and \"6\", targeting the Complainant's WAN 2.6 product. This registration postdates the Complainant's rights, confirming the Respondent’s knowledge. Such impersonation and unauthorized commercial use cannot confer rights or legitimate interests under the Policy.<\/span><\/p>\n

(iii) The disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Given the Complainant’s established reputation in China, where the Respondent is located, the Respondent was undoubtedly aware of the Complainant's trademarks, including WAN and TONGYI WANXIANG. The domain name incorporates the WAN mark with the numbers \"2\" and \"6\", creating a confusing similarity to the Complainant’s specific product. Furthermore, the Respondent uses the website to display the Complainant’s content and unauthorizedly sell services for commercial gain, creating a likelihood of confusion regarding the source or affiliation of the website. Finally, the Respondent has established a pattern of bad faith conduct, evidenced by other infringing registrations and a previous adverse decision in International Business Machines Corporation v. Jian Liu<\/em>.<\/span> <\/span><\/p>\n

RESPONDENT:<\/span><\/p>\n

The Respondent’s contentions can be summarized as follows:<\/span><\/p>\n

(i) Regarding the consent to transfer and the Complainant's refusal to settle, the Respondent unequivocally consents to the transfer of the disputed domain name. The Respondent asserts that it provided full cooperation by previously submitting a formal consent to transfer and by signing and returning the Complainant's unilateral declaration on January 23, 2026. Despite this, the Complainant's representative refused to finalize the settlement because the Respondent could not immediately provide the transfer authorization code. The Respondent argues that providing an authorization code is technically impossible while the domain name is locked by the administrative proceedings, a fact confirmed by the Case Administrator. Additionally, regarding the request for identification, the Respondent's identity was already verified by the Registrar, and sending a personal identification document via email poses privacy risks. Therefore, the Respondent claims to have done everything in its power to resolve the dispute and asserts that the Complainant's insistence on continuing the proceeding is abusive. Consequently, the Respondent requests the Panel to simply order the transfer.<\/span><\/p>\n

(ii) While the Respondent accepts the transfer due to trademark confusion, it firmly rejects the Complainant's allegations that it engaged in \"malicious cybercrime,\" or \"phishing.\" The Respondent submits a security scan report showing a clean score, arguing that the disputed domain name was technically safe and never used to distribute malware.<\/span><\/p>\n

(iii) Regarding the allegation of mistaken identity, the Respondent contends that the Complainant improperly cited International Business Machines Corporation v. Jian Liu<\/em>, WIPO Case No. D2021-0248, to allege a pattern of bad faith. The Respondent notes that \"Jian Liu\" is an extremely common name in China and explicitly denies being the respondent in the cited case. The Respondent argues that the Complainant failed to verify the Respondent's identity before making this accusation and requests the Panel to disregard this unfounded allegation.<\/span><\/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": "

       A. Language of the Proceedings<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

The Panel notes that the Registration Agreement is in English, thereby making English the default language of the administrative proceeding. However, the Respondent submitted its Response in Chinese. On February 10, 2026, the Panel issued a Procedural Order directing the Respondent to submit a full English translation of the Response, by a specified deadline. On February 11, 2026, the Respondent timely submitted the full English translation of the Response.<\/span> <\/span><\/p>\n

       B. Consent to Transfer<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

The Panel notes the following procedural history regarding the Respondent's consent to transfer the disputed domain name:<\/span><\/p>\n

On January 22, 2026, the Respondent submitted a communication to the CAC expressing its unconditional consent to transfer the disputed domain name to the Complainant without contest. The Respondent indicated that it had removed all associated content and DNS records, thereby rendering the domain inactive. Furthermore, the Respondent stated its intention to waive its right to submit a formal response and requested that the Panel order an immediate transfer to efficiently terminate the proceeding.<\/span><\/p>\n

On the same day, the CAC forwarded the Respondent's consent to the parties, advising that the parties could execute a standard settlement form to suspend the proceeding. In reply, the Complainant stipulated that it would only consider the settlement proposal and request a suspension if the Respondent first provided the domain’s transfer authorization code, a signed declaration, and a copy of its identification document.<\/span><\/p>\n

On January 23, 2026, the Complainant informed the CAC of its decision not to execute the settlement form and its clear intention to proceed with the UDRP proceeding. Consequently, the CAC notified the parties that the proceeding would continue and confirmed that the Respondent had until February 9, 2026, to submit a formal response.<\/span><\/p>\n

Finally, on February 9, 2026, the Respondent filed its Response, which formally reiterated its consent to transfer the disputed domain name containing a denial of the Complainant's allegations in the Complaint.<\/span><\/p>\n

      C. The Panel’s Determination on the Issue of Consent to Transfer<\/strong><\/p>\n

Notwithstanding the Respondent’s unconditional consent to the transfer of the disputed domain name to the Complainant, given that the Complainant has requested to proceed with the UDRP proceeding, the Panel has determined to proceed to a decision on the merits of the case.<\/span><\/p>\n

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>", "decision": "Accepted", "panelists": [ "Mr. Ho-Hyun Nahm Esq." ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2026-02-12 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "

The Complainant owns multiple trademark registrations for WAN and WANX in jurisdictions including, inter alia<\/em>, China, the European Union, and Hong Kong. Among the trademark portfolio of the Complainant, the \"WAN\" mark is protected in various jurisdictions including, among others, the following:<\/span><\/p>\n