{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-108448",
    "time_of_filling": "2026-03-03 07:35:58",
    "domain_names": [
        "roborockaustralia.com"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "  Iveta Špiclová   (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "Beijing Roborock Technology Co., Ltd."
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "Lei Zhang (Chofn Intellectual Property)",
    "respondent": [
        "Emilia Weaver (Emilia Weaver)"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "<p>FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:<\/p>\n<p>THE COMPLAINANT<\/p>\n<p>Established in 2014, the Complainant is an innovator in home robotics and appliances. The Complainant is committed to innovation in researching, developing, and producing home cleaning devices, particularly robotic, cordless, and wet\/ dry vacuum cleaners.<\/p>\n<p>As a global pioneer, the Complainant was among the first to successfully implement LiDAR technology, precision optical vision navigation, and advanced obstacle avoidance algorithms within the intelligent robotic vacuum industry on a commercial scale. To sustain its technological edge, the Complainant operates multiple world-class R&amp;D centers, such as its Product R&amp;D Department, Mechatronics Research Institute, and MIA Laboratory. This robust technical foundation has enabled the Complainant to establish a formidable global footprint, with regional offices in the United States, Japan, the Netherlands, Poland, Germany, and South Korea. To date, ROBOROCK products are distributed across more than 170 countries and regions, serving over 15 million households worldwide. Furthermore, the Complainant maintains a dominant retail presence through official brand stores on major global e-commerce platforms, including Amazon, Home Depot, Target, Best Buy, and Walmart, thereby establishing significant international brand recognition and goodwill.<\/p>\n<p>Since its listing in 2020, the Complainant has maintained a trajectory of robust financial growth. In 2020, the Complainant reported an operating income of RMB 4.53 billion, representing a 7.74% year-on-year increase. Notably, its overseas revenue reached RMB 1.87 billion, a staggering 221.33% increase from the previous year. The upward trend continued in 2021, with total operating income reaching RMB 5.84 billion (up 28.84% YoY). During that year, the Complainant sold approximately 2.82 million units of robotic vacuum cleaners, with international markets contributing RMB 3.36 billion (57.63% of total revenue). In 2022 and 2023, the Complainant&rsquo;s operating income further climbed to RMB 6.63 billion and RMB 8.65 billion respectively, reflecting consistent double-digit growth.<\/p>\n<p>In parallel with its financial success, the Complainant&rsquo;s technological excellence and brand influence have been recognized through numerous prestigious industry awards conferred between 2020 and 2023.<\/p>\n<p>The Complainant is the owner of several trademarks ROBOROCK such as:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>International Trademark n. 1392428 &ndash; ROBOROCK &ndash; Nice Cl. 7 as of 27 November 2017;<\/li>\n<li>International Trademark n. 1488782 &ndash; ROBOROCK &ndash; Nice Cl. 9 as of 8 August 2019;<\/li>\n<li>International Trademark 1580853&ndash; ROBOROCK &ndash; Nice Cl. 37 as of 21 December 2020;<\/li>\n<li>EUTM n. 017298035 &ndash; ROBOROCK &ndash; Nice Cl. 7, 9 &amp; 35 as of 24 January 2018;<\/li>\n<li>EUTM n. 018638288 &ndash; ROBOROCK &ndash; Nice Cl. 3 as of 18 May 20.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>The disputed domain name &lt;roborockaustralia.com&gt; (hereinafter, the &bdquo;Disputed Domain Name&ldquo;) was registered on 25 August 2025 and in accordance with the Complainant, resolve to an unauthorized online store mirroring the Complainant&rsquo;s core business.<\/p>\n<p>According to Complainant&rsquo;s non-contested allegations, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in respect of the Disputed Domain Name and the Complainant is not related in any way to the Complainant&rsquo;s business (neither as authorized distributor nor as a business partner).<\/p>\n<p>For the purpose of this case, the Registrar confirmed that the Respondent is the current registrant of the Disputed Domain Name and that the language of the registration agreement is English.<\/p>\n<p>The facts asserted by the Complainant are not contested by the Respondent.<\/p>",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "<p>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": "<p>COMPLAINANT:<\/p>\n<p>First element: Similarity<\/p>\n<p>The Complainant disputes the following points:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>\n<p>The Disputed Domain Name incorporates the Complainant's ROBOROCK trademark in its entirety. The addition of the term \"Australia\"&mdash;a purely geographical and generic descriptor&mdash;does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<li>\n<p>The threshold test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned, side-by-side comparison between the textual components of the relevant trademark and the Disputed Domain Name. In this instance, the ROBOROCK trademark is not only recognizable but remains the dominant and distinct feature within the Disputed Domain Name. Consequently, as the Disputed Domain Name incorporates the Complainant's mark in its entirety, the Complainant submits that it is confusingly similar to the Complainant&rsquo;s prior rights.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>Second element: Rights or legitimate interest<\/p>\n<p>The Complainant argues the following:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>The Complainant&rsquo;s searches across multiple national and regional trademark databases have yielded no evidence that the Respondent holds any trademark rights in the term ROBOROCK.<\/li>\n<li>Furthermore, the Respondent is neither an authorized distributor nor a business partner of the Complainant. At no time has the Complainant, directly or indirectly, authorized or licensed the Respondent to use the ROBOROCK trademark, or to register any corresponding Disputed Domain N<\/li>\n<li>Notably, the Respondent&rsquo;s listed name, &ldquo;Emilia Weaver&rdquo;, bears no connection to the term ROBOROCK, and there is no evidence to suggest that the Respondent is commonly known by the Disputed Domain N<\/li>\n<li>The Respondent&rsquo;s website&mdash;an unauthorized online store mirroring the Complainant&rsquo;s core business&mdash;fails to disclose the absence of an official relationship with the Complainant. By adopting a layout and functionality nearly identical to the Complainant&rsquo;s official channels, the Respondent utilizes the ROBOROCK trademark to deliberately create a false impression of being an authorized Australian affiliate.<\/li>\n<li>Such deceptive \"impersonation\" for commercial gain precludes a finding of a bona fide offering of goods or services under paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy. The Respondent is not merely reselling goods; it is leveraging the Complainant&rsquo;s global goodwill to divert consumers to its own commercial platform.<\/li>\n<li>The Respondent&rsquo;s use of the Disputed Domain Name to host a commercial web store that competes directly with the Complainant&rsquo;s authorized distribution channels demonstrates that the use is neither \"fair\" nor \"non-commercial.\"<\/li>\n<li>Given that the ROBOROCK brand had attained significant global recognition long before the registration of the disputed domain name, the Respondent&rsquo;s \"copycat\" usage is a clear attempt to capitalize on the Complainant&rsquo;s established reputation.<\/li>\n<li>Accordingly, as the Respondent fails the Oki Data test and lacks any independent rights or authorization, the Complainant submits that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under paragraph 4(c) of the Policy.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>Third element: Bad faith<\/p>\n<p>The Complaint argues the following elements:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>As established above, the Complainant is the global leader in the robotic vacuum industry, and the ROBOROCK trademark has attained high recognition and distinctiveness through extensive use and promotion.<\/li>\n<li>Given that the Respondent has, from the outset, used the Disputed Domain Name to offer products bearing the Complainant&rsquo;s brand, there is no doubt that the Respondent had actual knowledge of the Complainant&rsquo;s trademarks and business at the time of registration. The choice of a Disputed Domain Name that incorporates the Complainant&rsquo;s mark in its entirety further confirms that the Respondent targeted the Complainant&rsquo;s rights in bad faith.<\/li>\n<li>The Complainant submits that the presentation of the Respondent&rsquo;s website is designed to mislead Internet users into believing the site is operated, endorsed by, or affiliated with the Complainant. Specifically, the ROBOROCK logo is featured prominently in key locations on the website connected tot he Disputed Domain Name without any disclaimer of association or disclosure of the site&rsquo;s true ownership. This creates a deceptive impression of an \"official\" status.<\/li>\n<li>The Complainant maintains that the Respondent is intentionally using the Disputed Domain Name to attract Internet users for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion as to the source or affiliation of the website. Pursuant to Policy paragraph 4(b)(iv), such conduct constitutes conclusive evidence of both bad faith registration and bad faith use under paragraph 4(a)(iii).<\/li>\n<li>In light of the Respondent's clear targeting of the Complainant&rsquo;s well-known mark and the deceptive nature of the associated website, the Complainant submits that the Respondent has registered and used the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>RESPONDENT<\/p>\n<p>Respondent did not reply to the Complaint.<\/p>",
    "rights": "<p>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": "<p>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": "<p>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": "<p><strong><u>Language of Proceeding<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n<p>The Complainant has requested that the language of proceedings shall be in English. The Registrar confirmed on 3 March 2026 that the language of the registration agreement is English. Therefore, the Panel agrees that the current process should be conducted in English.<\/p>\n<p>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": [
        "Victor Garcia Padilla"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2026-04-06 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "<p>The Complainant is the owner of several trademarks ROBOROCK such as:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>International Trademark n. 1392428 &ndash; ROBOROCK &ndash; Nice Cl. 7 as of 27 November 2017;<\/li>\n<li>International Trademark n. 1488782 &ndash; ROBOROCK &ndash; Nice Cl. 9 as of 8 August 2019;<\/li>\n<li>International Trademark 1580853&ndash; ROBOROCK &ndash; Nice Cl. 37 as of 21 December 2020;<\/li>\n<li>EUTM n. 017298035 &ndash; ROBOROCK &ndash; Nice Cl. 7, 9 &amp; 35 as of 24 January 2018;<\/li>\n<li>EUTM n. 018638288 &ndash; ROBOROCK &ndash; Nice Cl. 3 as of 18 May 2022.<\/li>\n<\/ul>",
    "decision_domains": {
        "roborockaustralia.com": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}