{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-108226", "time_of_filling": "2026-06-18 09:55:37", "domain_names": [ "heytoon.net" ], "case_administrator": "Olga Dvořáková (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "Ms Demetra Philippou Ms (HONEYTECH LTD)" ], "complainant_representative": null, "respondent": [ "Hoan Nguyen" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "

The Complainant is a Cypriot company that owns and operates the Honeytoon digital comics and webtoon platform at the domain name <honeytoon.com> under the HONEYTOON trademark. This platform includes a number of original titles that were created for the Honeytoon platform by contributors engaged in the production of the Complainant's catalogue. The Complainant controls the relevant rights in these works, including the rights in English-language versions of the works.<\/p>\n

The disputed domain name was registered on July 23, 2024 and at the time of filing of the Complaint, it resolved to a webpage under the name “Heytoon”, displaying unauthorized copies of the Complainant’s comics. At the time of this Decision, the disputed domain name redirects to the domain name <toonhey.com> which resolves to a webpage under the name “Toonhey” and displays unauthorized copies of the Complainant’s comics.<\/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 name.<\/p>", "no_response_filed": "

The Complainant contends that the requirements of the Policy have been met and that the disputed domain name should be transferred to it. In particular, the Complainant argues that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its HONEYTOON trademark. Namely, the Complainant considers the disputed domain name to be a typographical variation of its trademark, that omits two letters from the trademark. The disputed domain name retains the identical first letter “H” and the identical final six-letter string “EYTOON”. As a result, seven out of the nine characters of HONEYTOON appear in the disputed domain name in the same order. The confusing similarity is reinforced by the Respondent's use of the disputed domain in the same niche and for the same type of online content. The confusion is further increased by the Respondent’s use of unauthorized copies of the Complainant's comics. The Complainant adds that the Top-Level-Domain suffix \".net\" should be disregarded for purposes of the first element analysis, as it represents only a technical registration requirement.<\/p>\n

Regarding the second UDRP element, the Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The Complainant has never authorized, licensed, or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use the HONEYTOON trademark or any confusingly similar name. The Respondent is not affiliated with the Complainant and has no legitimate business relationship with the Complainant. There is no evidence that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name or that it has acquired independent trademark or service mark rights in that name. Nor is there any evidence that the Respondent is making a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. Instead, the disputed domain name resolves to a website operating in the same online comics\/webtoon niche as the Complainant and targeting the same audience. Furthermore, the use of the disputed domain name to host, display, promote, or monetize unauthorized copies of the Complainant's works constitutes unlawful activity. Such use cannot, by default, give rise to rights or legitimate interests under the Policy. The Respondent cannot establish a bona fide offering of goods or services by using a confusingly similar domain name to attract users to unauthorized copies of the Complainant’s own content.<\/p>\n

With reference to the circumstances evidencing bad faith, the Complainant states that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant's HONEYTOON trademark when registering the disputed domain name. At the time of the registration of the disputed domain name, the Complainant’s “Honeytoon” platform was already available to internet users for several years. The Composition of the disputed domain name suggests that the Respondent intentionally tried to use a typographical variation of the Complainant’s trademark, by deleting the portion “on” and preserving the first letter “h” and six-letter sequence “eytoon”. Finally, the use of the disputed domain name in the same field where the Complainant is operating and for displaying unauthorized copies of the Complainant’s works, clearly indicates targeting of the Complainant through registration of the disputed domain name. The Complainant adds that the disputed domain is used to attract Internet users for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark, which falls squarely within paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. By using a domain name confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark and displaying content corresponding to the Complainant's own comics catalogue, the Respondent intentionally attracts users who are searching for the Complainant, the Complainant's platform, or content related to the Complainant.<\/p>\n

The Respondent has contacted the Czech Arbitration Court and requested the extension of the deadline for providing its response in accordance with the paragraph 5(b) of the Rules. In accordance with the Rules, the extension was automatically granted, but despite the extended deadline, no administratively compliant Response has been filed.  <\/p>", "rights": "

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": "

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": "

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": "

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>\n

Supplemental Filing by the Complainant<\/span><\/p>\n

On July 14, 2026, the Complainant submitted an unsolicited supplemental filing that provides additional evidence, namely information about the change in content on the disputed domain which at that point started redirecting to the domain name <toonhey.com>, which resolves to a webpage under the name “Toonhey” and displays unauthorized copies of the Complainant’s comics. The Complainant added that this new redirection further reinforces the bad faith on the Respondent’s side, as it demonstrates that the Respondent has not ceased using the disputed domain name, but instead appears to have redirected its traffic after the commencement of the present proceedings.<\/p>\n

Paragraph 10 of the Rules vests the panel with the authority to determine the admissibility, relevance, materiality and weight of the evidence, and also to conduct the proceedings with due expedition.<\/p>\n

Paragraph 12 of the Rules expressly provides that it is for the panel to request, in its sole discretion, any further statements or documents from the parties it may deem necessary to decide the case.<\/p>\n

Unsolicited supplemental filings are generally discouraged, unless specifically requested by the panel.<\/p>\n

In all such cases, panels have repeatedly affirmed that the party submitting or requesting to submit an unsolicited supplemental filing should clearly show its relevance to the case and why it was unable to provide the information contained therein in its complaint or response (e.g., owing to some unforeseen or exceptional circumstance), as stipulated in section 4.6 of WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Select UDRP Questions (“WIPO Overview 3.1”).<\/p>\n

In this particular case, the Panel accepts the supplemental filing from the Complainant, as it relates to the facts that changed after the filing of the Complaint and the Respondent’s behavior after the commencement of the present proceedings. The Panel additionally underlines that in accordance with general powers granted to the Panel under paragraphs 10 and 12 of the Rules (WIPO Overview 3.1, section 4.8), panels should, in any event, make limited factual research regarding the status of the disputed domain name and the content of the webpage to which it resolves or redirects at the time of the decision.<\/p>", "decision": "Accepted", "panelists": [ "Stefan Bojovic" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2026-07-29 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "

The Complainant is the owner of registered trademarks for the HONEYTOON trademark. In particular, the Complainant is the owner of the following trademark registrations:<\/p>\n