{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-108597", "time_of_filling": "2026-04-22 08:59:03", "domain_names": [ "skylenage.ai", "skylenage.com" ], "case_administrator": "Olga Dvořáková (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "Alibaba Group Holding Limited" ], "complainant_representative": "Convey srl", "respondent": [ "li lin" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "

A<\/strong>. Complainant<\/strong>'s Assertions<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Complainant is a multinational technology and e-commerce group founded in 1999 and operating globally across a wide range of digital, cloud computing, artificial intelligence and related technology sectors.<\/p>\n

As part of its artificial intelligence activities, the Complainant developed SKYLENAGE (晓天衡宇), an artificial intelligence model evaluation platform intended to assess and benchmark the capabilities of large language models and related artificial intelligence systems.<\/p>\n

Beginning in September 2025, the Complainant publicly disclosed the SKYLENAGE platform and associated benchmark datasets through a series of technical publications, developer repositories, research platforms and industry events. The Complainant also filed trade mark applications for SKYLENAGE in China on 18 September 2025.<\/p>\n

B<\/strong>. Respondent<\/strong>'s Position<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Respondent participated in the proceeding and submitted detailed procedural objections concerning, among other matters, consolidation, the language of the proceeding and certain alleged procedural deficiencies in the Complaint.<\/p>\n

Following Procedural Order No. 1, the Respondent submitted observations concerning the language of the proceeding.<\/p>\n

Following Procedural Order No. 2, the Respondent submitted further observations addressing the merits of the Complaint.<\/p>\n

The Respondent's submissions are summarised below and addressed in the Panel's findings.<\/p>\n

C<\/strong>. Disputed Domain Names<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Disputed Domain Name <skylenage.com> was registered on 26 September 2025.<\/p>\n

At the time relevant to the Complaint, it resolved to a pay-per-click (PPC) landing page displaying sponsored advertising links and was simultaneously offered for sale through the registrar's marketplace at a stated price of USD 100,000. The Disputed Domain Name does not presently resolve to an active website.<\/p>\n

The Disputed Domain Name <skylenage.ai> was also registered on 26 September 2025.<\/p>\n

At the time relevant to the Complaint, it resolved to a landing page offering the domain name for sale at a stated price of USD 500,000. The Disputed Domain Name does not presently resolve to an active website.<\/p>", "other_legal_proceedings": "

The Panel is unaware of any other pending or decided legal proceedings relating to the domain names <skylenage.com> and <skylenage.ai> (the \"Disputed Domain Names\").<\/p>", "no_response_filed": "

A<\/strong>. Complainant<\/strong><\/p>\n

A<\/strong>.1 Identical or Confusingly Similar<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Complainant submits that the Disputed Domain Names are identical, or at least confusingly similar, to the SKYLENAGE trade mark.<\/p>\n

The Complainant contends that each Disputed Domain Name reproduces the SKYLENAGE trade mark in its entirety and that neither the <.com> nor the <.ai> Top-Level Domain (the \"TLD\") is capable of distinguishing the Disputed Domain Names from the Complainant's trade mark.<\/p>\n

A<\/strong>.2 Rights or Legitimate Interests <\/strong><\/p>\n

The Complainant submits that the Respondent has never been authorised to use the term \"Skylenage\", is not commonly known by that name, and has no rights or legitimate interests in either Disputed Domain Name.<\/p>\n

The Complainant further contends that the Disputed Domain Names were used solely for monetisation and resale purposes, including PPC advertising and substantial offers for sale.<\/p>\n

The Complainant submits that the Respondent has failed to provide credible evidence of any independent business activity, branding initiative, or bona fide<\/em> preparations for use of the term \"Skylenage\" prior to registration of the Disputed Domain Names.  <\/p>\n

A<\/strong>.3 Registered and Used in Bad Faith<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Complainant submits that the SKYLENAGE trade mark is inherently distinctive and was publicly disclosed shortly before the registration of the Disputed Domain Names.<\/p>\n

According to the Complainant, the registration of two domain names identical to the SKYLENAGE trade mark on the very day of the public launch of the platform cannot reasonably be explained as coincidence.<\/p>\n

The Complainant further relies upon the Respondent's offers to sell the Disputed Domain Names, the use of privacy services, the absence of any response to cease-and-desist communications, and evidence of a broader pattern of registrations incorporating third-party trade marks.<\/p>\n

The Complainant further submits that the relevant enquiry is whether the Respondent was aware of and targeted the Complainant's SKYLENAGE activities at the time of registration, rather than whether the Complainant's trade mark registrations had formally matured at that date.<\/p>\n

A<\/strong>.4 Relief Sought <\/strong><\/p>\n

The Complainant requests transfer of the Disputed Domain Names in accordance with paragraph 4(i) of the UDRP Policy.<\/p>\n

B<\/strong>. Respondent<\/strong><\/p>\n

B<\/strong>.1 Identical or Confusingly Similar<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Respondent contends that its intended branding consists of the expressions \"世凯纳智 SkyleNaGe.com\" and \"世凯纳智 SkyleNaGe.Ai\", which it says are conceptually distinct from the Complainant's SKYLENAGE trade mark.<\/p>\n

The Respondent further submits that the Parties operate in different industries and that the Complainant's trade mark rights are confined to Classes 9 and 42, whereas the Respondent's activities relate to manufacturing and materials processing.<\/p>\n

The Respondent also submits that SKYLENAGE is not a famous trade mark and that the Complainant does not possess monopoly rights extending across all industries, classes or domain name registrations.<\/p>\n

B<\/strong>.2 Rights or Legitimate Interests<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Respondent submits that it operates a long-standing electronics manufacturing business through Shenzhen Jiafengda Electronics Co., Ltd.<\/p>\n

The Respondent states that the Disputed Domain Names were registered as part of a planned rebranding initiative under the name \"世凯纳智 SkyleNaGe\", developed in connection with a manufacturing-focused business project.<\/p>\n

The Respondent relies upon a portfolio of domain name registrations, a Class 40 Chinese trade mark application, alleged product use, and claimed preparations for future business activities as evidence of rights and legitimate interests.<\/p>\n

The critical question, however, is not whether the Respondent operates a legitimate manufacturing business, but whether it has demonstrated rights or legitimate interests in the specific term \"Skylenage\". On the present record, the Panel is not satisfied that the Respondent had independently adopted, used, or prepared to use that term prior to registration of the Disputed Domain Names.<\/p>\n

The Respondent further contends that it registered the Disputed Domain Names for its own business purposes and not for the purpose of targeting the Complainant.<\/p>\n

 B.3 Registered and Used in Bad Faith<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Respondent denies having targeted the Complainant.<\/p>\n

The Respondent states that the selection of the term \"Skylenage\" resulted from an independently conceived branding concept derived from various linguistic and conceptual elements and was unrelated to the Complainant's artificial intelligence activities.<\/p>\n

The Respondent further submits that the Disputed Domain Names were registered before the Complainant's trade mark registrations matured and that the registration of a broader portfolio of related domain names is consistent with a genuine branding strategy.<\/p>\n

The Respondent also contends that the prices displayed for the Disputed Domain Names were arbitrary values intended to discourage spam or unsolicited approaches and did not represent genuine offers to sell the domain names.<\/p>\n

The Respondent denies having sought to sell the Disputed Domain Names to the Complainant and contends that it acted in good faith throughout.<\/span><\/p>\n

B<\/strong>.4 Reverse Domain Name Hijacking<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Respondent requests a finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (the \"RDNH\").<\/p>\n

The Respondent contends that the Complaint constitutes an abuse of the UDRP process and that the Complainant improperly sought to obtain domain names to which it is not entitled.<\/p>", "rights": "

The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown that the Disputed Domain Names are identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark in which the Complainant has rights (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the UDRP 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 that the Disputed Domain Names have been registered and are being used in bad faith (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the UDRP Policy).<\/p>", "procedural_factors": "

1<\/strong>. Consolidation <\/strong><\/p>\n

By Procedural Order No. 1, the Panel ordered the consolidation of CAC Case Nos. 108596 and 108597 pursuant to Rules 10(b), 10(c) and 10(e) of the UDRP Rules.<\/p>\n

The Panel found that the Disputed Domain Names were registered by the same Respondent and that the disputes concerned closely related factual circumstances and overlapping issues under the UDRP Policy. The consolidated proceeding has continued under CAC Case No. 108597.<\/p>\n

2<\/strong>. Language of the Proceeding<\/strong><\/p>\n

The language of the Registration Agreement for the Disputed Domain Name <skylenage.com> is Chinese. The language of the Registration Agreement for the Disputed Domain Name <skylenage.ai> is English.<\/p>\n

By Procedural Order No. 1, the Panel invited submissions concerning the language of the proceeding.<\/p>\n

Following receipt of those submissions, the Panel issued Procedural Order No. 2. For the reasons set out therein, the Panel determined that English would be the language of the proceeding. The Panel further permitted the Respondent to submit observations on the merits in either English or Chinese.<\/p>\n

3<\/strong>. Procedural Order No. 2<\/strong><\/p>\n

By Procedural Order No. 2, the Panel determined that English would be the language of the proceeding and afforded the Respondent an opportunity to submit observations concerning the merits of the Complaint in Chinese if the Respondent so wished. The Complainant was afforded an opportunity to reply.<\/span><\/p>\n

The Parties each submitted further observations, which the Panel has considered in full.<\/p>\n

4<\/strong>. Respondent<\/strong>'s Procedural Objections<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Respondent raised a number of procedural objections concerning, among other matters, consolidation, language, and certain alleged deficiencies in the Complaint. The Panel has considered those submissions in full.<\/p>\n

4<\/strong>.1<\/strong> Consolidation Objections<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Respondent repeatedly requested that CAC Case No. 108596 and No. 108597 be consolidated and expressed concern that separate treatment of the disputes might result in inconsistent procedural treatment and outcomes.<\/span><\/p>\n

Those objections were substantially addressed by Procedural Order No. 1, by which the Panel ordered consolidation of the proceedings pursuant to Rules 10(b), 10(c) and 10(e) of the UDRP Rules.<\/p>\n

4<\/strong>.2 Language Objections<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Respondent objected to the use of English as the language of the proceeding and contended that Chinese should be adopted, relying in particular upon the language of the Registration Agreement applicable to the Disputed Domain Name <skylenage.com>, the location of the Parties, and considerations of procedural fairness.<\/span><\/p>\n

The Respondent further argued that substantive matters should be addressed only after the language issue had been determined.<\/p>\n

Those objections were addressed by Procedural Order No. 2.<\/p>\n

4<\/strong>.3 Objections concerning the Complaint and Jurisdiction<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Respondent also challenged the adequacy of the Complaint and asserted that certain information relating to the Complainant, its representatives and mutual jurisdiction was incomplete.<\/p>\n

The Panel has reviewed those submissions and does not consider that they disclose any deficiency capable of preventing determination of the dispute under the UDRP Policy and the UDRP Rules.<\/p>\n

4<\/strong>.4 Alleged Procedural Unfairness<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Respondent further alleged that aspects of the proceeding were unfair and that the Complaint had been brought in a procedurally abusive manner.<\/p>\n

The Panel has considered those submissions but does not find that they establish any procedural unfairness affecting the Panel's ability to determine the dispute in accordance with the UDRP Policy and the UDRP Rules.<\/p>\n

5<\/strong>. Sufficiency of the Record<\/strong><\/p>\n

Following Procedural Order No. 2, both Parties were afforded an opportunity to address the merits of the dispute. The Respondent submitted observations on the merits and the Complainant submitted a reply.  <\/p>\n

The Panel is satisfied that the Parties have been afforded a full and fair opportunity to present their respective positions and that the record is complete and sufficient to permit determination of the dispute.<\/p>\n

6<\/strong>.  Procedural compliance<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Panel is satisfied that all procedural requirements under the UDRP Policy, the UDRP Rules, and the CAC Supplemental Rules have been complied with and that the dispute is properly before the Panel for determination. <\/p>", "decision": "Accepted", "panelists": [ "Yana Zhou" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2026-06-17 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "

The Complainant, Alibaba Group Holding Limited, owns registered trade marks in SKYLENAGE, including:<\/p>\n

• Chinese trade mark registration no. 87684832 in Class 9, registered on 14 March 2026; and<\/p>\n

• Chinese trade mark registration no. 87694959 in Class 42, registered on 14 March 2026.<\/p>\n

(collectively, the \"Complainant's trade marks\").<\/p>\n

The Complainant further relies upon its prior use and public disclosure of the term SKYLENAGE in connection with its artificial intelligence evaluation platform before the registration of the Disputed Domain Names.<\/p>", "decision_domains": { "skylenage.ai": "TRANSFERRED", "skylenage.com": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }