The Complainant is a Chinese company established in 1993 and active in the tools and storage industry. Its product portfolio encompasses hand tools, power tools, laser measurement instruments, and power stations, serving application areas including home maintenance, construction, vehicle maintenance, and home energy management. The Complainant represents the leading tools and storage company in Asia and ranks among the top six globally in its sector.<\/p>\n
The Complainant's WORKPRO brand, launched in 2009, is described as a comprehensive private-label tool brand comprising more than twenty product categories. The Complainant supplies major retail chains in the United States, Europe, and Canada, including Home Depot, Walmart, Lowes, Kingfisher, and CTC. In addition to traditional retail distribution, the Complainant has developed significant cross-border e-commerce operations. In 2021, global WORKPRO brand sales exceeded 100 million units. According to the Complainant's annual report for the financial year 2022, the Complainant achieved operating revenues exceeding RMB 12.6 billion, with own-brand revenues — including the WORKPRO, DURATECH, SWISSTECH, and Prexiso brands — accounting for more than 40% of total revenues for the first time. The Complainant further states that it maintains production, sales, and service operations across 21 sites worldwide and supplies in excess of 20,000 hardware and building materials retail outlets globally.<\/p>\n
The Complainant describes ongoing investment in research and development, having invested CNY 319 million during the 2022 reporting period, resulting in the design of 2,105 new products and the filing and grant of more than 300 patents each. The WORKPRO brand received industry recognition, including the PTIA 2021 Pneumatic Tools and Nailers Awards and the PTIA 2021 Accessories Awards. The Complainant further references active participation in international trade exhibitions between 2021 and 2023.<\/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 asserts that the Respondent has no trademark rights, no authorization from the Complainant, and no legitimate association with the WORKPRO brand.<\/p>\n
The Complainant submits that all of the WORKPRO trademark registrations predate the registration of the disputed domain name. The Complainant additionally contends that, through extensive commercial use and international promotion over many years, the WORKPRO mark has acquired a high degree of distinctiveness and global recognition, and that a unique association has developed between the mark and the Complainant in the perception of consumers.<\/p>\n
Identity or Confusing Similarity<\/strong><\/p>\n The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the WORKPRO trademark. In its analysis, the Complainant argues that the generic top-level domain suffix \".com\" should be disregarded as it lacks any distinguishing capacity and is therefore irrelevant to the comparison under the first element of the UDRP Policy. <\/p>\n The Complainant further submits that the element \"uk\", which constitutes the only addition to the WORKPRO mark is a widely recognized geographical abbreviation for the United Kingdom and serves no distinctive function. On this basis, the Complainant contends that \"uk\" should likewise be disregarded for the purposes of the comparison.<\/p>\n The Complainant concludes that the principal identifying element of the disputed domain name is \"workpro\", which is identical to its registered WORKPRO trademark. Given that the disputed domain name wholly incorporates the Complainant's mark, the Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is identical or, at a minimum, confusingly similar to the WORKPRO trademark, and that this satisfies the requirements under Rule 4(a)(i) of the UDRP Policy.<\/p>\n Rights or Legitimate Interests of the Respondent<\/strong><\/p>\n The Complainant submits that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. In support of this position, the Complainant advances the following arguments:<\/p>\n First, the Respondent operates a shopping website through the disputed domain name whose content is closely related to the Complainant's core business activities. The website does not disclose any affiliation with or authorization from the Complainant, and the Complainant submits that the website falsely creates an impression of sponsorship, endorsement, or approval by the trademark owner. The Complainant therefore argues that such use cannot constitute bona fide or fair use within the meaning of the UDRP Policy.<\/p>\n Second, searches conducted in multiple national and regional trademark databases have revealed no trademark registrations held by the Respondent in the WORKPRO name.<\/p>\n Third, the Respondent is not, and has never been, a distributor, licensee, or authorized partner of the Complainant, and has not received any form of direct or indirect authorization to use the WORKPRO trademark or a corresponding domain name.<\/p>\n Fourth, the Complainant asserts that there is no evidence that the Respondent has made any legitimate preparations for good faith use of the disputed domain name in connection with a genuine and independent commercial activity unrelated to the Complainant.<\/p>\n On these grounds, the Complainant submits that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n Bad Faith Registration and Use<\/strong><\/p>\n The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name was both registered and is being used in bad faith, in accordance with Rule 4(a)(iii) and Rule 4(b) of the UDRP Policy.<\/p>\n Regarding bad faith registration, the Complainant contends that the WORKPRO brand had already achieved a high degree of international recognition and a significant presence in the e-commerce sector prior to the registration of the disputed domain name. The Complainant argues that the Respondent, who is located in China — the same country as the Complainant — must have been aware of the WORKPRO trademark at the time of registration. The Complainant submits that the deliberate incorporation of the Complainant's distinctive mark into the disputed domain name, combined with knowledge of that mark, constitutes evidence of bad faith registration.<\/p>\n Regarding bad faith use, the Complainant submits that the Respondent has pointed the disputed domain name to a website whose content closely mirrors that of the Complainant's business operations, and which prominently features the WORKPRO trademark on multiple occasions. The Complainant argues that this conduct falls within the circumstances described in Rule 4(b)(iv) of the UDRP Policy, namely intentional use of the disputed domain name in an attempt to attract Internet users to the Respondent's website for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of that website or the products offered thereon.<\/p>\n The Complainant further submits that the deliberate and calculated nature of the use of the disputed domain name to imitate the Complainant's WORKPRO brand, together with the absence of any plausible legitimate explanation for the choice of domain name, supports a finding of bad faith at the time of registration. The Complainant concludes that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith within the meaning of the UDRP Policy.<\/p>\n <\/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 confusingly similar to a trademark 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 Complaint was filed with the Czech Arbitration Court Arbitration Center for Internet Disputes (the \"Center\") on February 28, 2026. The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the \"Policy\"), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the \"Rules\"), and the Center's Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the \"Supplemental Rules\").<\/p>\n In accordance with the Rules, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint and the proceedings commenced on March 10,2026. The Respondent was given the opportunity to submit a Response within 20 days. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on March 31, 2026.<\/p>\n The Center appointed Mr. Petr Hostaš as the sole Panelist in this matter on March 31, 2026. The Panelist has submitted a Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center.<\/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": [
"Petr Hostaš"
],
"date_of_panel_decision": "2026-04-07 00:00:00",
"informal_english_translation": "\n