{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-108509", "time_of_filling": "2026-03-20 09:11:35", "domain_names": [ "csaetify.com", "casrtify.com", "caesetify.com" ], "case_administrator": "Olga Dvořáková (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "Casetagram Limited" ], "complainant_representative": "Mr. Paddy Tam (CSC Digital Brand Services Group AB)", "respondent": [ "Zhichao Yang (Zhichao Yang)" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "

The Complainant is Casetagram Limited (trading as Casetify), <\/b><\/span>a <\/span>Hong Kong<\/span> company that produces <\/span>phone cases<\/span> and electronic accessories, f<\/span>ounded on 1 November 2011 <\/span><\/sup>by Wesley Ng.<\/span><\/p>\n

Headquartered in Hong Kong, CASETiFY has a strong international presence, with offices in Los Angeles, Seoul and Tokyo, among others, and employees from over 30 countries. Across its 14-year history, CASETiFY has protected over 20 million devices worldwide, as well as collaborating with over 500 global artists and offering 30,000 different designs. Complainant has grown in tandem with its sustainability efforts, reflected in its recycling of over 2.1 million phone cases since 2021.<\/p>\n

Complainant maintains a strong internet presence. Complainant’s main website is connected to its primary domain name <casetify.com>, registered on November 22, 2013. <\/p>\n

The disputed domain names are the following:<\/p>\n

<caesetify.com> - registered on 7 July 2025;<\/p>\n

<csaetify.com> - registered on 8 August 2025;<\/p>\n

<casrtify.com> - registered on 8 August 2025;<\/p>\n

and at the time of filing the Complaint they were all redirecting internet users to a third-party website at <searchandhelp.com> that offered information about Complainant’s phone case products without any authorization.<\/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": "

The Complainant contends that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Trademark.<\/span>

Furthermore, the Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. In this regard, the Complainant states that the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, that it is not affiliated with nor authorized by the Complainant in any way, that the Complainant does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with the Respondent, and that neither license nor authorization has been granted to the Respondent to make any use of the Trademark or apply for registration of the disputed domain names by the Complainant.<\/span>

Finally, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith. It contends that the Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant and its Trademark at the time of registration of the disputed domain names as the Trademark is well-known and the disputed domain names redirect users to a website relevant to the Complainant and its products. Further, that the Respondent's use of the disputed domain names is evidence of bad faith<\/span>, as it intentionally tried to attract users by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark as to the source of the websites associated to the disputed domain names.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

RESPONDENT:<\/span><\/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": "

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": [ "Stefanie Efstathiou LL.M. mult." ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2026-04-22 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "

The Complainant owns<\/span> several trademarks for \"CASETIFY\", registered worldwide, such as:<\/span><\/p>\n