WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Advanced New Technologies Co., Ltd. v. Ant Group

Case No. D2020-2960

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Advanced New Technologies Co., Ltd., Cayman Islands, United Kingdom, represented by CSC Digital Brand Services Group AB, Sweden.

The Respondent is Ant Group, Hong Kong, China.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <antgroup-ipo.com> (the “Disputed Domain Name”) is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on November 9, 2020. On November 9, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Name. On November 10, 2020, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the Disputed Domain Name, which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on November 21, 2020, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on November 23, 2020.

The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).

In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on November 24, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was December 14, 2020. The Center received an informal email communication from the Respondent on November 26, 2020. The Respondent did not submit a formal response. Accordingly, on December 13, 2020, the Center informed the Parties that it would proceed to appoint a panel.

The Center appointed Nicholas Weston as the sole panelist in this matter on January 20, 2021. 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 is a subsidiary of Ant Group Co. Ltd., (“Ant Group”) a technology company headquartered in Hangzhou, China that operates a number of businesses providing various financial services including an online payment service called “Alipay” with a large user base in China.

The Complainant holds registrations for the trademark ANT, and variations of it, in numerous jurisdictions, including Hong Kong, China trademark registration No. 302835955 registered on December 12, 2013, and Australian trademark No. 1601088 for the mark ANT registered on January 15, 2014 in classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 38, 39, 41, 42, and 45.

The Complainant controls, inter alia, the domain name <antgroup.com> registered on July 30, 2009, which resolves to the company’s main website containing information about the company’s business.

The Disputed Domain Name <antgroup-ipo.com> was registered on September 30, 2020. The Complainant has supplied uncontested evidence that the Disputed Domain Name is connected to a fraudulent phishing scheme.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant cites its trademark registrations of the trademark ANT in various countries as prima facie evidence of ownership.

The Complainant submits that the mark ANT is well known and that its rights in that mark predate the Respondent’s registration of the Disputed Domain Name. It submits that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to its trademark, because the Disputed Domain Name incorporates in its entirety the ANT trademark and that the similarity is not removed by the addition of the word “group”, the hyphen, the acronym “ipo”, and addition of the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com”. The Complainant contends that the confusion is compounded by international publicity surrounding its intention to engage in one or more Initial Public Offering (“IPO”) processes.

The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name because the “Respondent’s purpose is to fool unsuspecting visitors into divulging their personal information by attempting to pass off as [the] Complainant’s website to attract unsuspecting Internet users to sign up for access to [the] Complainant’s IPO”. The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name.

Finally, the Complainant alleges that the registration and use of the Disputed Domain Name was, and currently is, in bad faith, contrary to the Policy and Rules having regard to the fame and prior use of the Complainant’s trademark, and that it was being used to further the perpetration of a fraud as part of a “phishing” scheme.

B. Respondent

The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. The only communication from the Respondent, received on November 26, 2020, stated the following:

“Contact Godaddy as they have locked the account and will not let the products be cancelled. Emails have been sent to them but they don't care”.

6. Discussion and Findings

Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant has the burden of proving the following:

(i) that the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and

(ii) that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name; and

(iii) that the Disputed Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Complainant has produced evidence to demonstrate that it has registered trademark rights in the mark ANT in numerous jurisdictions including the European Union, Hong Kong, China, Australia, and Singapore. The requirements of the first element for purposes of the Policy may be satisfied by a trademark registered in any country (see Thaigem Global Marketing Limited v. Sanchai Aree, WIPO Case No. D2002-0358).

Turning to whether the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the ANT trademark, the Panel observes that the Disputed Domain Name comprises: (a) an exact reproduction of the Complainant’s trademark ANT; (b) with the word “group” added; (c) followed by a hyphen; (d) followed by the acronym “ipo”; (e) followed by the gTLD “.com”.

It is well-established that the gTLD used as technical part of a domain name may be disregarded (see Autodesk v. MumbaiDomains, WIPO Case No. D2012-0286). The relevant comparison to be made is with the second-level portion of the Disputed Domain Name, specifically: “antgroup-ipo”.

It is also well established that where a complainant’s trademark is recognizable within the Disputed Domain Name, it may be confusingly similar to that mark despite the addition of a word or, in this case, the word “group”, a hyphen and the acronym “ipo” (see Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ASD, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2001-0903; Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Kuchora, Kal, WIPO Case No. D2006-0033; SGS Société Générale de Surveillance S.A. v. Inspectorate, WIPO Case No. D2000-0025; SoftBank Group Corp., SoftBank Corp. v. WhoisGuard Protected, WhoisGuard, Inc. / Nick Fletcher, WIPO Case No. D2018-2682; Advanced New Technologies Co. v. WhoisGuard Protected, WhoisGuard, Inc. / Jonathan Swan, WIPO Case No. D2020-0875); WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected URDP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.8).

This Panel finds that the additions to the Complainant’s trademark of the word “group”, a hyphen and the acronym “ipo”, does not in itself prevent a finding of confusing similarity.

The Panel finds that the Complainant has established paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy lists the ways that the respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Policy also places the burden on the complainant to establish the absence of respondent’s rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. Because of the inherent difficulties in proving a negative, the consensus view is that the complainant need only put forward a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests. The burden of production then shifts to the respondent to rebut that prima facie case (see World Wrestling Federation Entertainment, Inc. v. Ringside Collectibles, WIPO Case No. D2000-1306; WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.1).

The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name because the mark ANT is not a dictionary word but rather a distinctive and well-known name. The Complainant also has not licensed, permitted or authorized the Respondent to use the Complainant’s trademark. The Complainant submits that the “Respondent is not making a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate, noncommercial fair use of the Disputed Domain Name. [The] Respondent’s inclusion of the Complainant’s ANT GROUP logo and logos of [the] Complainant’s various products and services including its ALIPAY logo on the Disputed Domain Name’s website is a direct effort to take advantage of the fame and goodwill that [the] Complainant has built in its brand, and [the] Respondent is not only using the confusingly similar Disputed Domain Name, but is also imitating [the] Complainant by displaying the Complainant’s logos.”

On any objective view, the Respondent is not a reseller with a legitimate interest in a domain name incorporating a manufacturer’s mark, such that it could meet the tests set out in Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ASD, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2001‑0903. Nor, alternatively, is the Respondent commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name.

This Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name because it is engaging in an online phishing scam using a website pretending to be associated with the Complainant operating under the brand ANT for the purpose of misleading potential investors, based on the wide recognition of the Complainant’s mark ANT, with the intention to deceive visitors to the fake website into submitting personal information and, possibly, sensitive financial information.

The Panel infers that the Respondent was opportunistically using the Complainant’s mark in the furtherance of attempted fraud.

The Panel finds for the Complainant on the second element of the Policy.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The third element of the Policy requires that the Complainant must also demonstrate that the Disputed Domain Name has been registered and used in bad faith. Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out certain circumstances to be construed as evidence of both of these conjunctive requirements.

The examples of bad faith registration and use in Policy, paragraph 4(b) are not exhaustive of all circumstances from which such bad faith may be found (see Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No. D2000-0003). The objective of the Policy is to curb the abusive registration of domain names in circumstances where the registrant is seeking to profit from and exploit the trademark of another (see Match.com, LP v. Bill Zag and NWLAWS.ORG, WIPO Case No. D2004-0230).

The Panel finds that the evidence in the case shows the Respondent registered and has used the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith.

On the issue of registration, such is the publicity involving the proposed IPO of the Ant Group, involving as it does its trademark ANT, it would be inconceivable the Respondent might have registered the Disputed Domain Name without knowing of it. This Panel accepts the Complainant’s evidence of the conduct of the Respondent by pretending to be an “insider” for or representative of the Complainant in relation to its proposed “IPO”, as evidence that the Respondent was well aware of the Complainant’s trademark ANT when registering the Disputed Domain Name.

On the issue of use, the Complainant’s evidence is that the Respondent attempted to deceive visitors to its webpage into believing it was a legitimate webpage hosted from a domain name associated with the Complainant’s ANT brand. The obvious risk of deception or confusion as to the origin of such a website, or its putative affiliation with the Complainant is, in this Panel’s view, the very essence of bad faith under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.4.

The Panel finds that the most likely reason for the Respondent registering the Disputed Domain Name and then using it to represent that it is a representative or “insider” of the Complainant on the website, and asking visitors to the website for their personal information, is that the Respondent was attempting to perpetrate a fraud.

In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, this Panel accepts the Complainant’s evidence and finds that the Respondent has taken the Complainant’s trademark ANT and incorporated it in the Disputed Domain Name without the Complainant’s consent or authorization, for the very purpose of capitalizing on the reputation of the trademark by creating a website that pretends to be associated with or authorized by the Complainant, for the purpose of seeking to obtain personal information, and possibly sensitive financial information, in an attempt to defraud potential investors in the proposed Ant Group public offering, an activity that falls into a category of conduct known as “phishing”. Numerous previous UDRP panels have held that the registration and the use of a disputed domain name in connection with a fraudulent “phishing” scheme constitutes bad faith under the Policy (see L’Oréal, Biotherm, Lancôme Parfums et Beauté & Cie v. Unasi, Inc, WIPO Case No. D2005-0623; Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin, Maison Fondée en 1772 v. The Polygenix Group Co., WIPO Case No. D2000-0163 and Advanced New Technologies Co. v. WhoisGuard Protected, WhoisGuard, Inc. / Jonathan Swan, supra).

Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.

7. Decision

For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the Disputed Domain Name <antgroup-ipo.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

Nicholas Weston
Sole Panelist
Date: February 3, 2021