{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-108841", "time_of_filling": "2026-07-23 09:21:09", "domain_names": [ "1688.ai" ], "case_administrator": " Iveta Špiclová (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "Alibaba Innovation Private Limited " ], "complainant_representative": "Convey srl", "respondent": [ "XIAOJIAN DONG" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "

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

The Complainant is a Singapore company forming part of the Alibaba Group corporate structure.<\/p>\n

The Alibaba Group operates the 1688 business-to-business online marketplace, which was launched in China in 1999 and operates principally through the domain name <1688.com>. The Complainant submits that, through longstanding use and promotion, the 1688 trade mark has acquired substantial goodwill and recognition, particularly in China.<\/p>\n

The Alibaba Group also conducts activities in the fields of technology and artificial intelligence.  <\/p>\n

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

The Respondent is Xiaojian Dong. The Respondent states that he registered the disputed domain name for an artificial intelligence project. He explains that he selected the number \"1688\" because of what he regards as auspicious Chinese numeric wordplay conveying continuing prosperity, and selected the <.ai> Top-Level Domain (the \"TLD\") because of its association with artificial intelligence and, ultimately, artificial general intelligence (\"AGI\").<\/p>\n

The Respondent has produced materials relating to an AI training and commercial application project under the name \"QiaPi AI\". The source-file information submitted with those materials records a creation and last-modified date of 19 September 2023. The Respondent has also produced interface designs for an AI chatbot project whose source-file information records a creation and last-modified date of 13 October 2023.<\/p>\n

The Respondent does not contend that those materials were published through the disputed domain name. He relies upon them as contemporaneous evidence of his independent involvement in AI-related projects shortly after registering the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n

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

The disputed domain name <1688.ai> was registered on 11 July 2023.<\/p>\n

The evidence indicates that, by 2 April 2025, the disputed domain name resolved to a webpage entitled \"The Way to AGI\", containing a general contact form. That archived webpage did not display the Complainant's name or logo, refer to its 1688 marketplace, offer e-commerce products or competing services, display advertising or pay-per-click links, or contain any notice offering the disputed domain name for sale.   <\/p>\n

The evidence submitted by the Complainant further shows that the disputed domain name was subsequently offered for sale through GoDaddy for USD 168,888.<\/p>", "other_legal_proceedings": "

The Panel is unaware of any other pending or decided legal proceedings in respect of the domain name <1688.ai> (the \"disputed domain name\").<\/p>", "no_response_filed": "

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

A<\/strong>.1 The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark in which the Complainant has rights<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is identical to its registered 1688 trade mark. It contends that the <.ai> TLD is to be disregarded for the purposes of the comparison under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the UDRP Policy.<\/p>\n

A<\/strong>.2 <\/strong>The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Complainant submits that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. It states that the Respondent has never been authorised to use the 1688 trade mark, is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, and that there is no evidence that he holds any independent rights in the designation \"1688\".<\/p>\n

The Complainant notes that the disputed domain name was offered for sale for USD 168,888 and, at the time of the Complaint, directed Internet users to an Afternic sale-inquiry page. It contends that such use does not constitute a bona fide<\/em> offering of goods or services or legitimate non-commercial or fair use.<\/p>\n

The Complainant further submits that the disputed domain name carries a high risk of implied affiliation because it consists entirely of the Complainant's 1688 trade mark together with the <.ai> TLD.<\/p>\n

A<\/strong>.3 <\/strong>The disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.<\/p>\n

The Complainant refers to the longstanding use and reputation of the 1688 trade mark and its registrations in numerous jurisdictions, including Hong Kong, where the Respondent is based. The Complainant contends that the Respondent could not reasonably have been unaware of the Complainant and its rights when registering the disputed domain name. The Complainant further submits that the <.ai> TLD reinforces the association with the Complainant because the Alibaba Group conducts substantial activities in the fields of technology and artificial intelligence.<\/p>\n

The Complainant places particular reliance upon the offering of the disputed domain name for sale for USD 168,888. It contends that this amount substantially exceeds the Respondent’s out-of-pocket registration costs and demonstrates that the disputed domain name was registered primarily for the purpose of resale for valuable consideration within the circumstances contemplated by paragraph 4(b)(i) of the UDRP Policy.<\/p>\n

The Complainant also points to the Respondent's use of a privacy service and the absence of any response to a cease-and-desist communication sent on the Complainant's behalf to the anonymised proxy email address associated with the disputed domain name. <\/p>\n

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

The Complainant requests that the disputed domain name <1688.ai> be transferred to it 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 does not contest, for the purposes of this proceeding, that the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant's trade mark under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the UDRP Policy.<\/p>\n

B<\/strong>.2 Rights or legitimate interests<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Respondent submits that he has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name arising from its intended and actual use in connection with independent artificial-intelligence activities.<\/p>\n

The Respondent states that he selected \"1688\" because of what he regards as auspicious Chinese numeric wordplay conveying continuing prosperity and combined that number with the <.ai> TLD because the intended project concerned artificial intelligence and AGI.<\/p>\n

In support of that explanation, the Respondent has produced AI training and commercial application materials dated September 2023 and AI chatbot interface designs dated October 2023, shortly after registration of the disputed domain name. The Respondent acknowledges that those materials were not themselves published through <1688.ai>, but contends that they corroborate his independent involvement in AI-related project development at the relevant time.<\/p>\n

The Respondent further points to an Internet Archive capture showing that, by April 2025 and before notice of the proceeding, the disputed domain name was being used for a webpage entitled \"The Way to AGI\". The Respondent emphasises that the webpage contained no reference to the Complainant, Alibaba, the 1688 marketplace or e-commerce activities, and displayed neither advertising nor an offer to sell the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n

The Respondent submits that this contemporaneous and pre-dispute evidence rebuts the Complainant’s prima facie<\/em> case and demonstrates use or preparations for use within the circumstances contemplated by paragraph 4(c)(i) of the UDRP Policy.<\/p>\n

B<\/strong>.3 Registered and used in bad faith<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Respondent denies that he registered the disputed domain name to target the Complainant or its 1688 trade mark. He submits that the decisive question is his intention when registering the disputed domain name in July 2023 and that his contemporaneous AI activities, followed by the actual AGI-related use of the disputed domain name, provide an independent explanation for the registration.<\/p>\n

The Respondent accepts that the disputed domain name was subsequently listed for sale for USD 168,888 but submits that the listing occurred almost three years after registration. He states that he never approached the Complainant or any of its competitors to solicit a sale and contends that the subsequent marketplace listing cannot retrospectively establish that resale to the Complainant or a competitor was his primary purpose when registering the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n

The Respondent further submits that the Afternic page relied upon by the Complainant was a sale-inquiry page rather than a pay-per-click parking page and that the earlier archived AGI webpage contained no advertising or sale notice.<\/p>\n

The Respondent also states that his use of GoDaddy’s privacy and domain-protection service was ordinary account protection and denies receiving the cease-and-desist communication sent to the anonymised proxy address. The Respondent further submits that the renewal of the disputed domain name in 2025 did not constitute a new registration or acquisition and that he has maintained continuous control of the disputed domain name since July 2023.<\/p>\n

The Respondent requests that the Complaint be denied.<\/p>", "rights": "

The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown that the disputed domain name is identical 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 failed to establish, to the satisfaction of the Panel, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the UDRP Policy).<\/p>", "bad_faith": "

The Complainant has failed to establish, to the satisfaction of the Panel, that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the UDRP Policy).<\/p>", "procedural_factors": "

The Panel is satisfied that all procedural requirements under the UDRP Policy, the UDRP Rules and the CAC Supplemental Rules have been met. The dispute is properly before the Panel.  <\/p>", "decision": "Rejected", "panelists": [ "Gustavo Moser" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2026-08-28 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "

The Complainant, Alibaba Innovation Private Limited, owns numerous registered trade marks for 1688, including:<\/p>\n

• Chinese trade mark registration no. 8035960, registered on 28 February 2011;<\/p>\n

• European Union trade mark registration no. 016958605, registered on 27 November 2017;<\/p>\n

• Hong Kong trade mark registration no. 304198979, registered on 6 July 2017;<\/p>\n

• United States trade mark registration no. 5766635, registered on 4 June 2019.<\/p>", "decision_domains": { "1688.ai": "REJECTED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }