CASETiFY was founded by Wesley Ng in November 2011 when he wanted to protect his new iPhone but felt let down by the weighty, boring options at hand. Using his design and innovation skills, he sought to create protective cases that were coverable, sleek and unique – individualized style statements. Originally, CASETiFY was a way for users to customize phone cases with their own photos. It has since evolved into a company that empowers its customers to express their individuality, creativity and personal style through a range of tech accessories, including phone cases and watch bands.<\/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. The Complainant has grown in tandem with its sustainability efforts, reflected in its recycling of over 2.1 million phone cases since 2021.<\/p>\n
The Complainant maintains a strong internet presence. Complainant’s main website is connected to its primary domain name <casetify.com>, registered since November 22, 2013. According to SimilarWeb, the Complainant’s website received 6.6 million individual visits in December 2025, making it the 3,421st<\/sup> <\/span>most popular website in the United States and the 5,993rd<\/sup> <\/span>globally. The Complainant also promotes its range of unique products through its various social media channels. CASETiFY has 2.7 million Instagram followers; 2.1 million Facebook followers; 777K TikTok followers; and 108.4K Twitter\/X followers.<\/p>\n The Respondent registered the disputed domain names on July 9, 2020 at 15h17, a date and time which is significantly later than the Complainant's filing of its CASETiFY trademark with the USPTO, WIPO and CNIPA, and also significantly after the Complainant’s first use in commerce of its trademark in 2011. The registrations also fall significantly after the Complainant’s registration of its primary domain name <casetify.com> on November 22, 2013. <\/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 requirements of the Policy have been met and that the disputed domain names should be transferred to it. 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": " CONSOLIDATION OF THE PROCEEDINGS<\/p>\n The Complainant has requested that the disputed domain names and the named Respondents be consolidated in a single UDRP proceeding.<\/p>\n The consolidation of multiple registrants as respondents in a single administrative proceeding may be appropriate under certain circumstances under paragraph 3(c) or 10(e) of the Rules, provided that the Complainant can demonstrate that the disputed domain names or the web sites to which they resolve are subject to common control, and the panel, having regard to all of the relevant circumstances, determines that consolidation would be procedurally efficient and fair and equitable to all parties. <\/em>Once a case is admitted on a prima facie<\/em> basis, the Respondent is given the opportunity to make its submissions on the validity of the consolidation together with its substantive arguments.<\/p>\n As expressed in WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 4.11.2, the consensus on this matter is as follows: \"Where a complaint is filed against multiple respondents, panels look at whether (i) the domain names or corresponding websites are subject to common control, and (ii) the consolidation would be fair and equitable to all parties. Procedural efficiency would also underpin panel consideration of such a consolidation scenario.\" <\/p>\n When assessing whether multiple domain names may be found to be under common control, the following circumstances have been evaluated, amongst others, in prior UDRP decisions: <\/p>\n Circumstances indicating that different registrants were alter egos of the same beneficial holder (See Backstreet Productions, Inc. v. John Zuccarini, CupcakeParty, Cupcake Real Video, Cupcake-Show and Cupcakes-First Patrol, WIPO Case No. D2001-0654), may be:<\/p>\n In the case at hand, all three disputed domain names, which all incorporate simple one-letter misspellings of the Complainant’s trademark CASETiFY, meet the requirements for finding that they are under the control of a single individual or entity or, at least, the control of a group of individuals acting in concert:<\/p>\n They were all registered on the same date and at the same time. They are all registered with the same registrar. Both registrant names are connected to other UDRP proceedings where it was held that they had obtained infringing registrations, thus demonstrating a pattern of cybersquatting. Both are geographically connected to China, in one case through the email service in use and in the other through the geographic address provided. <\/p>\n In light of the above, the Complainant requested that the disputed domain names and the named Respondents be consolidated in a single UDRP proceeding. The Respondent has not in any way challenged the prima facie evidence provided by the Complainant, as no administratively compliant Response was filed. The evidence provided by the Complainant is sufficient to convince the Panel of the existence of common control over these domain names. For that reason, the Panel finds that the consolidation of the dispute is equitable and procedurally efficient.<\/p>\n The Panel is therefore 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": [
"Udo Pfleghar B.A. (Melb.)"
],
"date_of_panel_decision": "2026-04-23 00:00:00",
"informal_english_translation": " Casetagram Limited (the “Complainant” or “CASETiFY”) is the owner of trademark registrations across various jurisdictions, including:<\/p>\n
No administratively compliant Response has been filed.<\/p>",
"rights": "\n
\n