The Complainant launched the INSTANT POT branded multicooker in 2008, and since then, the brand has gained widespread acclaim and commercial success. For example, on March 6, 2017, the BBC reported on its UK website that “the INSTANT POT has become a veritable craze, a success built through social media word-of-mouth instead of traditional TV or print advertising.” In July 2016, on Amazon Prime Day, the INSTANT POT multicooker sold 215,000 units in the United States in a single day. The Complainant maintains an active online presence, including owning the domain name <instantpot.com>, which is used to operate the INSTANT POT main website (the “official website”). The official website has been live since at least as early as May 22, 2009. The Complainant holds a portfolio of domain names in support of its INSTANT POT brand, including domains with the naming convention “INSTANT POT + [geographic term].com.” The Complainant is also active on social media and has, through its social media efforts, generated a significant level of endorsement. <\/p>\n
The INSTANT POT Community on Facebook has 3.2M members, further demonstrating the popularity and reach of the INSTANT POT brand amongst consumers and Internet users. The Complainant is well-known and has established goodwill and a reputation in the Countries. The Complainant has been headlined and featured in online news outlets that are read by the public worldwide, as well as news outlets that are popular locally in the Countries. In Canada, for example, CBC News released an article in 2017 headlined, “Cult-like worshippers turn Canadian-invented INSTANT POT into a phenomenon.” That same year in the United States, The New York Times<\/em> wrote that INSTANT POT is “the Kitchen Gadget That Spawned a Religion.” In 2021, the Daily Maverick<\/em> (South Africa) wrote that INSTANT POT “stirred the Air Fryer Revolution.” Additionally, Malay Mail<\/em> published an article with the headline, “Falling in love with the INSTANT POT.” Further, the Complainant’s INSTANT POT-branded products are available for purchase on marketplaces available globally. The Complainant also has manufacturing operations in Malaysia and other Southeast Asian countries. <\/p>\n All of the disputed domain names were registered on November 6, 2025. The disputed domain names resolve to the identical websites, which advertise and offer for sale INSTANT POT branded products without authorization from the Complainant, by prominently displaying the Complainant’s marks and adopting a substantively similar layout to the official websites for the INSTANT POT mark of the Complainant.<\/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 names.<\/p>",
"no_response_filed": " COMPLAINANT:<\/p>\n (i) The Complainant has rights in the INSTANT POT marks as identified in the section “Identification of rights” above. The disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s INSTANT POT mark because they incorporate the Complainant’s mark in its entirety, with the mere addition of a geographic term (i.e., the name of a country) plus the gTLD “.com.” One of the disputed domain names, <instantpot-mexico.com>, slightly departs from this convention with the addition of the hyphen symbol “-” before the geographic term. <\/p>\n (ii) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names. The Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names. The Respondent has not provided a bona fide<\/em> offering of goods or services in connection with the disputed domain names. The disputed domain names resolve to impersonation websites, which impersonate and attempt to pass off as the Complainant and the INSTANT POT mark. The websites at the disputed domain names advertise and offer for sale INSTANT POT branded products, without authorization from the Complainant. Further, the resolving websites at the disputed domain names prominently display the Complainant’s marks and adopt a substantially similar layout to the official websites for the INSTANT POT brand. <\/p>\n (iii) The Respondent has registered is using the disputed domain names in bad faith. Given the reputation of the Complainant’s mark and the Respondent’s impersonation of the INSTANT POT mark, the Respondent had knowledge of the Complainant’s rights in the INSTANT POT mark before registering the disputed domain names, which constitutes bad faith registration. The use of the disputed domain names in connection with commercial websites where the Complainant’s trademark is misappropriated and prima facie<\/em> counterfeit INSTANT POT-branded products are offered for sale, clearly indicates that the Respondent’s purpose for registering the disputed domain names was to capitalize on the reputation of the Complainant’s trademark. <\/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 names are 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 names (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 names have been registered and are being used in bad faith (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy).<\/p>",
"procedural_factors": " PRELIMINARY ISSUE 1: Multiple Respondents<\/span><\/strong> <\/span><\/p>\n The Complainant has alleged that it is likely that the disputed domain names are under the control of a single entity and consolidation is appropriate in this matter. Paragraph 3(c) of the Rules for the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules” and the “UDRP” or “Policy”) provides that a “complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that the domain names are registered by the same domain name holder.” The Complainant contends that the disputed domain names are subject to evident common control, thus making the consolidation of the dispute equitable and procedurally efficient. The disputed domain names were registered by the same domain-name holder or under the control of a common operator, based on commonalities between the disputed domain names and the websites to which they resolve, given that: <\/span> <\/p>\n (i) There is a common use of registrant names. There are only three names used for the registrant contact details for the disputed domain names, namely Xu Hui, Ma Lei, and Gao Yuan (subject to some variation due to English translation); <\/span> <\/span><\/p>\n (ii) There is use of other common registration information, including postal addresses, email addresses, telephone, and fax numbers; <\/span> <\/p>\n (iii) The disputed domain names are registered with only three registrars: Vantage of Convergence (Chengdu) Technology Co., Ltd., Xin Net Technology Corporation, and Bangning Digital Technology Co., Ltd., which are all based in China; <\/span> <\/p>\n (iv) The disputed domain names were all registered on the same day, specifically November 6, 2025; <\/span> <\/p>\n (v) The disputed domain names (except for one) have identical naming patterns and use the same gTLD “.com.” All but one of the disputed domain names adopt the naming convention “INSTANT POT + [country].com.” The outstanding domain name adopts an almost identical naming convention, specifically “INSTANT POT - [country].com.” Therefore, the only difference between this domain name and the other disputed domain names is the mere addition of the hyphen symbol “-,” which is insufficient to distinguish it from the other domain names; <\/span> <\/p>\n (vi) The disputed domain names all resolve to identical websites which impersonate and attempt to pass off as the official website of the INSTANT POT mark; and <\/span> <\/p>\n (vii) The disputed domain names’ resolving websites are all connected to the same account on X (formerly Twitter) called “@uix.” <\/span> <\/p>\n In light of all the information related above and the relationships between the use of the disputed domain names, the Complainant believes that the present one is a clear case where the disputed domain names are under the actual control of a single individual or entity or, at least, reflective of a group of individuals acting in concert. <\/span> <\/span><\/p>\n The Complainant provides exhibits showing the circumstances as listed above. The Panel finds that the circumstances indicated above are concrete and sufficient to prove that the disputed domain names are subject t<\/span>o common control by a single entity. The Panel agrees and finds that the disputed domain names are commonly owned\/controlled by a single Respondent who is using multiple aliases. Throughout the decision, the Respondents will be collectively referred to as “the Respondent.” <\/span> <\/p>\n PRELIMINARY ISSUE 2: Language of the Proceedings <\/span><\/strong> <\/p>\n The Panel notes that the Registration Agreement is written in Chinese, thereby making the language of the proceedings Chinese. The Complainant has requested that the proceeding should be conducted in English. The Panel has the discretion under UDRP Rule 11(a) to determine the appropriate language of the proceedings, taking the particular circumstances of the administrative proceeding into consideration. See Section 4.5, WIPO Overview 3.1; see also Lovehoney Group Limited v. yan zhang<\/em>, CAC 103917 (CAC August 17, 2021) (finding it appropriate to conduct the proceeding in English under Rule 11, despite Japanese being designated as the required language in the registration agreement). <\/span> <\/p>\n The Complainant contends that (i) the disputed domain names and the impersonation websites are in English; (ii) the Complainant and its legal representatives are English-speakers; and (iii) it would be inequitable for it to incur additional time and expense in dealing with proceedings in Chinese or another language in which it does not have any proficiency or understanding. <\/span> <\/p>\n Pursuant to UDRP Rule 11(a), the Panel finds that a persuasive argument has been adduced by the Complainant. After considering the circumstances of the present case, in the absence of a Response and no objection to the Complainant's request for the language of the proceeding, the Panel decides that the proceeding should be in English. <\/span> <\/p>\n The Panel is satisfied that all procedural requirements under the UDRP were met and there is no other reason why it would be inappropriate to provide a decision. <\/span><\/p>",
"decision": "Accepted",
"panelists": [
"Mr. Ho-Hyun Nahm Esq."
],
"date_of_panel_decision": "2026-03-02 00:00:00",
"informal_english_translation": " The Complainant is the owner of the trademark INSTANT POT in various jurisdictions around the world, inter alia<\/em>, the following trademark registrations: <\/p>\n\n