About Intellectual Property IP Training IP Outreach IP for… IP and... IP in... Patent & Technology Information Trademark Information Industrial Design Information Geographical Indication Information Plant Variety Information (UPOV) IP Laws, Treaties & Judgements IP Resources IP Reports Patent Protection Trademark Protection Industrial Design Protection Geographical Indication Protection Plant Variety Protection (UPOV) IP Dispute Resolution IP Office Business Solutions Paying for IP Services Negotiation & Decision-Making Development Cooperation Innovation Support Public-Private Partnerships The Organization Working with WIPO Accountability Patents Trademarks Industrial Designs Geographical Indications Copyright Trade Secrets WIPO Academy Workshops & Seminars World IP Day WIPO Magazine Raising Awareness Case Studies & Success Stories IP News WIPO Awards Business Universities Indigenous Peoples Judiciaries Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Traditional Cultural Expressions Economics Gender Equality Global Health Climate Change Competition Policy Sustainable Development Goals Enforcement Frontier Technologies Mobile Applications Sports Tourism PATENTSCOPE Patent Analytics International Patent Classification ARDI – Research for Innovation ASPI – Specialized Patent Information Global Brand Database Madrid Monitor Article 6ter Express Database Nice Classification Vienna Classification Global Design Database International Designs Bulletin Hague Express Database Locarno Classification Lisbon Express Database Global Brand Database for GIs PLUTO Plant Variety Database GENIE Database WIPO-Administered Treaties WIPO Lex - IP Laws, Treaties & Judgments WIPO Standards IP Statistics WIPO Pearl (Terminology) WIPO Publications Country IP Profiles WIPO Knowledge Center WIPO Technology Trends Global Innovation Index World Intellectual Property Report PCT – The International Patent System ePCT Budapest – The International Microorganism Deposit System Madrid – The International Trademark System eMadrid Article 6ter (armorial bearings, flags, state emblems) Hague – The International Design System eHague Lisbon – The International System of Appellations of Origin and Geographical Indications eLisbon UPOV PRISMA Mediation Arbitration Expert Determination Domain Name Disputes Centralized Access to Search and Examination (CASE) Digital Access Service (DAS) WIPO Pay Current Account at WIPO WIPO Assemblies Standing Committees Calendar of Meetings WIPO Official Documents Development Agenda Technical Assistance IP Training Institutions COVID-19 Support National IP Strategies Policy & Legislative Advice Cooperation Hub Technology and Innovation Support Centers (TISC) Technology Transfer Inventor Assistance Program WIPO GREEN WIPO's Pat-INFORMED Accessible Books Consortium WIPO for Creators WIPO ALERT Member States Observers Director General Activities by Unit External Offices Job Vacancies Procurement Results & Budget Financial Reporting Oversight

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Alibaba Group Holding Limited v. Yifeng Tan

Case No. DAU2014-0029

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Alibaba Group Holding Limited of George Town, Grand Cayman, Cayman Islands, Overseas Territory of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, represented by Mayer Brown JSM, China.

The Respondent is Yifeng Tan of New South Wales, Australia.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <alipay.com.au> is registered with Namescout.com.

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on September 10, 2014. On September 10, 2014, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On October 1, 2014, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details.

The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the .au Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy" or ".auDRP"), the Rules for .au Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules"), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for .au Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Supplemental Rules").

In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on October 3, 2014. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was October 23, 2014. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on October 24, 2014.

The Center appointed Andrew F. Christie as the sole panelist in this matter on October 28, 2014. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7.

4. Factual Background

The Complainant was founded in China in 1999 and is a global leader in the field of e-commerce. Through its subsidiaries and affiliates it has offices in about 70 cities across China, as well as in Asia, the United States of America and Europe. For the nine months ended December 31, 2013, it had a total revenue of over RMB 40 billion and over 230 million active buyers across its platforms.

The Complainant operates two online business-to-business marketplaces, offers business management software and Internet infrastructure services, and has around 36.7 million registered users from more than 240 countries and regions. In 2004 the Complainant, through its affiliates, launched the Alipay platform at "www.alipay.com" under the brand "Alipay" and "支付宝" (i.e. "Alipay" in Chinese). It is one of the most widely used independent third-party payment solutions in China allowing businesses and individuals to make and receive payments on the Internet, and provides payment solutions for more than 460,000 merchants covering a wide range of industries.

The Complainant owns numerous trademark registrations for ALIPAY (the "ALIPAY trademark") in various countries around the world, including Australia (dating from December 2004), China, New Zealand and the United States of America.

The disputed domain name was registered on July 15, 2008. The Complainant has provided screenshots showing that, as of September 10, 2014, the disputed domain name resolved to a website consisting of a parking page containing sponsored links to various websites, including those of the Complainant, and a search engine box.

5. Parties' Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical and/or confusingly similar to registered trademarks in which the Complainant has rights or interests because it incorporates the Complainant's ALIPAY trademark in its entirety. The addition of the country code Top-Level Domain ("ccTLD") identifier <.au> and the second-level extension of <.com> can be disregarded.

The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name because: (i) the Complainant has not licensed, consented to or otherwise authorized the Respondent's use of its ALIPAY trademarks for any reason whatsoever, nor is the Respondent an authorized representative or partner of the Complainant; (ii) there is no evidence to suggest that the Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain name, and the Respondent's name does not reflect or correspond with the disputed domain name; (iii) to the best of the Complainant's knowledge and information, the Respondent does not own any trademark registrations reflecting or corresponding to the disputed domain name in Australia, where the Respondent appears to be domiciled; (iv) the disputed domain name resolves to a parking page that includes sponsored links that refer to the Complainant and includes links to the Complainant's websites and the websites of its competitors that most likely generated pay-per-click revenue for the Respondent; (v) the Respondent is not offering any bona fide goods or services for sale via the website to which the disputed domain name resolves; and (vi) as the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's well-known ALIPAY trademark it misleads users into believing that the disputed domain name is associated with the Complainant and may divert users to it, enabling the Respondent to make a commercial gain.

The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith because: (i) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name; (ii) the disputed domain name does not reflect or correspond to the Respondent's own name or the name of his business; (iii) as the Complainant's ALIPAY trademark is a made-up word it can be presumed that the Respondent's registration of the disputed domain name was motivated solely to take advantage of the Complainant's reputation in the ALIPAY trademarks and thereby make undue profits, and that the Respondent had knowledge of the Complainant and its ALIPAY trademarks at the time it registered the disputed domain name; (iv) the Complainant first began using, and applied to register, the ALIPAY trademark in Australia in 2004, four years before the disputed domain name was registered, and it has since acquired distinctiveness and worldwide fame such that it is inconceivable that the Respondent was not aware of the Complainant's ALIPAY trademarks at the time it registered the disputed domain name; and (v) the Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant's prior rights and interests in the disputed domain name since it resolves to a parking page that includes sponsored links which directly refer to the Complainant and includes some links to the Complainant's websites.

B. Respondent

The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

When the ccTLD identifier and the second-level extension are ignored, the disputed domain name consists of the Complainant's ALIPAY trademark. Thus, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is identical to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Respondent is not a licensee of, or otherwise affiliated with, the Complainant, and has not been authorized by the Complainant to use its ALIPAY trademark. The Respondent has not provided any evidence that it has been commonly known by, or has made a bona fide use of, the disputed domain name, or that it has, for any other reason, rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The evidence provided by the Complainant shows that the disputed domain name was used to resolve to a website which contained sponsored links to various websites, including those of the Complainant and of its competitors. According to the present record, therefore, the disputed domain name is not being used in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

C. Registered or Subsequently Used in Bad Faith

The disputed domain name was registered approximately four years after the Complainant first registered its ALIPAY trademark. The evidence on the record provided by the Complainant with respect to the use of its trademark, combined with the absence of any evidence provided by the Respondent to the contrary, is sufficient to satisfy the Panel that, at the time the disputed domain name was registered, the Respondent most likely knew of the Complainant's trademark and knew that it had no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Furthermore, the evidence on the record provided by the Complainant with respect to the Respondent's use of the disputed domain name indicates that the Respondent has used the disputed domain name to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to a website by creating confusion with the Complainant's trademark as to the affiliation of that website. For all these reasons, the Panel is satisfied that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

D. Complainant's Eligibility

The Complainant has requested transfer of the disputed domain name. Given that the Complainant owns an Australian registered trademark that is identical to the disputed domain name, the Complainant appears to satisfy the eligibility requirements for registration of the disputed domain name.

7. Decision

For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the domain name <alipay.com.au> be transferred to the Complainant.

Andrew F. Christie
Sole Panelist
Date: November 11, 2014

https://www3.wipo.int/contact/en/area.jsp?area=arbitration https://www.wipo.int/pressroom/en/ https://www.wipo.int/tools/en/disclaim.html https://www.wipo.int/en/web/privacy-policy/ https://www.wipo.int/en/web/accessibility/ https://www.wipo.int/tools/en/sitemap.html https://www3.wipo.int/newsletters/en/ https://www.wipo.int/podcasts/en/ https://www.wipo.int/news/en/