{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-108742", "time_of_filling": "2026-06-23 09:29:35", "domain_names": [ "temustores.com" ], "case_administrator": "Olga Dvořáková (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "Whaleco Technology Limited", "Whaleco Inc." ], "complainant_representative": "Xue Li (Thomsen Trampedach GmbH)", "respondent": [ "iam find55" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "

Complainant states that it belongs to “the same group of companies and affiliates under PDD Holdings Inc. doing business as TEMU and operating the TEMU marketplace platform (‘TEMU.COM’ or the ‘Platform’) in the U.S. and globally”; that “TEMU.COM launched in the United States in September 2022, and quickly became the most downloaded e-commerce app, surpassing 100 million downloads on the Google Play Store alone, and has been one of the most downloaded free applications on both the Google Play Store and the Apple App Store to date”; that “TEMU.COM is a global online platform that brings together consumers with merchants, manufacturers and brands around the world, offering a growing selection of merchandise in product categories such as clothing, consumer goods, cosmetics, appliances and electronics”; and that “[t]he Platform allows China-based vendors to sell and ship directly to customers without having to rely on intermediate distributors in the destination country, making products more affordable.”<\/p>\n

The Disputed Domain Name was created on March 1, 2026, and, according to the Complaint and screenshots provided as annexes thereto, is used in connection with a website that is “a near-identical replica of the Complainant’s official platform, misappropriating the TEMU logo, color scheme, and overall layout.” Complainant also states that “[t]he disputed domain names [sic] redirect to a website that hosts a blatant phishing scheme,” but Complainant provided no documentation to support that assertion.<\/p>", "other_legal_proceedings": "

The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings that are pending or decided and that relate to the Disputed Domain Name.<\/p>", "no_response_filed": "

Complainant contends, in relevant part, as follows:<\/p>\n

Paragraph 4(a)(i): Complainant states that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the TEMU Trademark because, inter alia<\/em>, the Disputed Domain Name “incorporates Complainant’s TEMU trademark in its entirety as its leading and dominant component”; “[t]he term ‘TEMU’ is clearly recognizable”; and “[t]he descriptive term ‘stores’ does nothing to alleviate user confusion; rather, it compounds it by describing the exact nature of Complainant’s industry,  e-commerce platforms hosting stores.”<\/p>\n

Paragraph 4(a)(ii): Complainant states that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name because, inter alia<\/em>, “Complainant has not licensed, otherwise permitted or authorized the Respondent to use the TEMU Trademarks or brand, or to apply for any domain name that is confusingly similar to the TEMU mark or brand”; “[t]here is not any trademark registration of TEMU, nor business registration by the registrant can be found”; “Complainant could not find any bona fide service or good provided by the domains before this complaint”; “Complainant sent a dispute notice to the email address listed on the website the dispute domain redirected to, but the email could not be delivered as the email address is not existing.”<\/p>\n

Paragraph 4(a)(iii): Complainant states that the Disputed Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith because, inter alia<\/em>, “[g]iven the global fame and pervasive online presence of the TEMU trademark, it is inconceivable that the Respondent was unaware of the Complainant’s rights at the time of registration”; “[t]he deliberate pairing of the Mark with the descriptive terms [sic] ‘stores’ directly describe the Complainant’s primary business [and] confirms that the Respondent specifically targeted the Complainant”; and Respondent’s website “is clearly designed to deceive internet users into believing they are interacting with the Complainant’s official services, thereby exploiting the Complainant’s brand reputation for unauthorized purposes.”<\/p>\n

No administratively compliant response has been filed.<\/p>", "rights": "

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 UDRP).<\/p>", "no_rights_or_legitimate_interests": "

 Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown 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 UDRP).<\/p>", "bad_faith": "

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 UDRP).<\/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": [ "Douglas Isenberg" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2026-07-16 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "

Complainant states that it, “through its affiliate Five Bells Limited, is the exclusive licensee of the following valid and subsisting common law and registered marks in the United States and worldwide,” for which it provided documentation:<\/p>\n