{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-108820", "time_of_filling": "2026-07-10 11:39:33", "domain_names": [ "goofish.ai" ], "case_administrator": " Iveta Špiclová (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "Alibaba Group Holding Limited" ], "complainant_representative": "Convey srl", "respondent": [ "yuhai quan" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "

Facts asserted by the Complainant<\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The Complainant, Alibaba Group Holding Limited, is a multinational technology and e-commerce company founded in 1999 and operating in more than 190 countries and regions. Its activities include online marketplaces, cloud computing, digital media and entertainment, logistics and artificial intelligence services. The Complainant states that Alibaba Innovation Private Limited, the holder of certain relevant intellectual property rights, is an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of the Complainant.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The Complainant operates “Goofish”, a second-hand online marketplace known in China as “Xianyu”, through which users may buy and sell pre-owned goods. According to the Complainant, the platform includes artificial intelligence tools that generate product descriptions and suggest prices. The Complainant states that the Goofish brand has also been promoted internationally.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The Complainant relies on registrations for the GOOFISH mark in several jurisdictions, including Australia, China, the European Union, Indonesia, Malaysia, New Zealand, Singapore, South Korea, the United Kingdom and the United States. These registrations pre-date the registration of the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The disputed domain name was registered on August 1, 2024. According to the Complainant, it resolves to a pay-per-click parking page displaying links to third-party websites and was previously offered for sale for an amount exceeding the registrant’s reasonable out-of-pocket costs.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

On June 15, 2026, the Complainant’s representative contacted the Respondent (or the previous registrant) through the Registrar’s contact facility, requesting that the Respondent cease using the GOOFISH designation and transfer the disputed domain name. According to the Complainant, the Respondent did not reply. A reverse WHOIS search conducted by the Complainant allegedly associated the Respondent with approximately 382 domain names, many of which concern technology, artificial intelligence, robotics, software, online platforms and digital commerce.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Facts asserted by the Respondent<\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The Respondent states that the disputed domain name was originally registered by a friend on August 1, 2024, and was transferred to the Respondent as a gift, without payment, on June 22, 2026. The Respondent relies on WeChat communications with the original registrant and an email confirming the transfer.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The Respondent acknowledges that the textual element of the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s GOOFISH mark, but states that the “.ai” extension is commonly associated with artificial intelligence projects and technology start-ups. According to the Respondent, the disputed domain name does not imitate the Complainant’s visual identity or branding.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The Respondent states that the disputed domain name is intended for an artificial intelligence website named “Gu Feiyu”, which the Respondent describes as the Chinese transliteration of “Goofish”. The Respondent further states that “Goofish” is a combination of the ordinary English words “goo” and “fish” and was selected for its meaning in the context of an artificial intelligence project, rather than because of the Complainant or its marketplace.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The Respondent holds more than 300 other domain names relating to technology, artificial intelligence and emerging Internet concepts. According to the Respondent, these domain names display static “under construction” or “coming soon” pages and have not been used for phishing, traffic diversion or targeting third-party brands.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The Respondent denies having offered the disputed domain name for sale. The Respondent states that the evidence submitted by the Complainant relates to December 26, 2025, when the disputed domain name was still held by the Respondent’s friend. The Respondent also states that any advertisements displayed at the disputed domain name are generated through the default parking or redirection settings of the Registrar or hosting provider, that the Respondent did not configure them, and that the Respondent receives no revenue from them.<\/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’s contentions<\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical to its registered GOOFISH Trademark; that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. These contentions are considered in greater detail below.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The Respondent’s contentions<\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The Respondent acknowledges that the disputed domain name corresponds to the Complainant’s GOOFISH Trademark but denies that Internet users would be confused, particularly because the “.ai” extension is associated with artificial intelligence projects. The Respondent contends that he has rights or legitimate interests because he received the disputed domain name as a gift from a friend and intends to use it for an artificial-intelligence project named “Gu Feiyu”. He further denies bad faith, arguing that the earlier offers to sell the disputed domain name predate his acquisition, that the parking page was generated automatically and produces no revenue for him, that holding a portfolio of technology-related domain names is not unlawful, and that “Goofish” is a combination of the ordinary English words “goo” and “fish”. These contentions are considered in greater detail below.<\/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>", "decision": "Accepted", "panelists": [ "Bart Van Besien" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2026-08-25 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "

The Complainant relies on the following registered trademarks owned by the Complainant itself (namely, the United States and South Korean trademarks listed below), jointly owned by the Complainant and another Alibaba Group company (namely, the Indonesian trademark), or owned by other companies within the Alibaba Group:<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n