Westmore · UDRP DecisionBytedance.one, Bytedance.xin
The Panel consolidated the proceedings concerning <bytedance.one> and <bytedance.xin>, determined that English would be the language of the proceeding, and found all three UDRP elements satisfied. The domain names incorporated the registered BYTEDANCE mark in its entirety, the Respondent presented no rights or legitimate interests, and the Panel found purposeful registration and a pattern of conduct preventing the Complainants from reflecting their mark in the two domain names. Both domain names were ordered transferred.
The timeline behind bytedance.one
Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.
How each disputed name was decided in this proceeding.
The decision illustrates consolidation based on matching multilingual registrant data, selection of a single procedural language where registration agreements differed, and a paragraph 4(b)(ii) pattern finding based on two domain names reproducing the same trademark across different new gTLDs.
Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.
WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Bytedance Ltd. and Beijing Bytedance Technology Co. Ltd. v. Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC / 陈坚坚 (chenjianjian) , 陈坚坚 (chenjianjian) Case No. D2021-1606 1. The Parties The Complainants are Bytedance Ltd., United Kingdom and Beijing Bytedance Technology Co. Ltd., China, represented by CSC Digital Brand Services Group AB, Sweden. The Respondent is Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC / 陈坚坚 (chenjianjian), 陈坚坚 (chenjianjian), China. 2. The Domain Names and Registrars The disputed domain name <bytedance.one> is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “first Registrar”). The disputed domain name <bytedance.xin> is registered with Alibaba Cloud Computing (Beijing) Co., Ltd. (the “second Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed in English with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on May 24, 2021. On May 25, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrars a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On May 26, 2021, the Registrars transmitted by email to the Center their verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain names which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on May 27, 2021 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrars, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint in English on May 28, 2021. On May 27, 2021, the Center transmitted another email communication to the Parties in English and Chinese regarding the language of the proceeding. On May 28, 2021, the Complainants confirmed their request that English be the language of the proceeding. The Respondent did not comment on the language of the proceeding. 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 in English and Chinese, and the proceedings commenced on June 3, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was June 23, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on July 1, 2021. The Center appointed Dr. Hong Xue as the sole panelist in this matter on July 16, 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 provides the Internet services to the public and owns a series of trademark registrations for BYTEDANCE in China, including the Registration No. 13563457 approved in 2015. The Complainant also owns the trademark registrations for BYTEDANCE in other countries or regions. The disputed domain name <bytedance.xin> was registered on December 28, 2020 and <bytedance.one> was registered April 19, 2021. Neither disputed domain name resolves to any active website at the time of the proceeding, although they had resolved to the websites that invited Internet users to open a fake Bytedance account. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that the disputed domain names <bytedance.xin> and <bytedance.one> are confusingly similar to its registered BYTEDANCE marks. The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names <bytedance.xin> and <bytedance.one>. The Complainant contends that the disputed domain names <bytedance.xin> and <bytedance.one> were registered and are being used in bad faith. The Complainant requests that the disputed domain names <bytedance.xin> and <bytedance.one> be transferred to it. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Language of Proceeding The Complainant requests the language of proceeding be English and states the reasons. The Respondent provides no response regarding the language of proceeding despite the Center’s notification in both English and Chinese. According to the registration information confirmed by the respective Registrar, the language of the Registration Agreement of the disputed domain name <bytedance.one> and <bytedance.xin> is English and Chinese respectively. Pursuant to paragraph 11 of the UDRP Rules, unless otherwise agreed by the parties, the default language of the proceeding is the language of the registration agreement, subject to the authority of the panel to determine otherwise. The Panel, therefore, finds it appropriate to confirm English as the language of proceeding for the disputed domain name <bytedance.one>. Although the language of the Registration Agreement of the disputed domain name <bytedance.xin> is Chinese, the Panel, in consideration of the following circumstances, i.e., the Respondent’s conclusion of the English Registration Agreement for the other disputed domain name <bytedance.one> proves its capability of understanding and using English, the disputed domain name <bytedance.xin> is in English characters identical with that of the Complainant’s marks BYTEDANCE, and the Complainant may suffer from the unfair burdens and delays if ordered to translate the Complaint and all other submissions into Chinese, finds it appropriate to proceed in English rather than the language of the Registration Agreement (see WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition, paragraph 4.5). Therefore, in accordance with paragraph 10 and 11 of the UDRP Rules, the Panel, for the purpose of ensuring both parties’ equal treatment and the fair opportunity to present the case as well as conducting the proceedings with due expedition, determines that English be the language of proceeding. B. Consolidation According to paragraph 3(c) of the UDRP Rules, a complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that the domain names are registered by the same domain-name holder. The Panel notes that the Complainant provides the prima facie evidence to prove that both disputed domain names were registered by the Respondent. The Respondent, on the other hand, does not rebut or deny the Complainant’s claim. Based on the registration information confirmed by the Registrars, the Panel discovers that the domain-name holder of both disputed domain names not only has the identical surname “chen/陈” and given name “Jian Jian/坚坚” but shares the identical address as “shilingzhenshilingcun/石陵镇石陵村, lai bin shi/来宾市”. In the registration information for <bytedance.one>, the registrant also provides that “shilingzhenshilingcun/石陵镇石陵村” is in “xingbin district/兴宾区” of “lai bin shi/来宾市”, which further proves the specific address of the domain-name holder. Since there is only one village named “Shiling” within Shiling Town, Xingbin District of Laibing City, Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region, China, the Panel finds that it is unlikely that “Jian Jian Chen” and “陈坚坚” are not same domain-name holder in a small village community. In accordance with paragraph 3(c) and paragraph 10(e) of the UDRP Rules, the Panel rules that the dispute proceedings regarding the two disputed domain names be consolidated. C. Identical or Confusingly Similar Pursuant to the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i), a complainant must prove that a disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights. In line with such requirement, a complainant must prove its trademark or service mark right and the identity or confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the respective trademark or service mark. The Panel examines the registration certificates submitted by the Complainant and finds that, long before the registration of the disputed domain names <bytedance.xin> and <bytedance.one>, the Complainant had registered a series of marks of BYTEDANCE in China (such as the Registration No. 13563457 approved in 2015) and acquired the exclusive rights over the registered marks. Apart from the new generic Top-Level Domains (“gTLD”) “.one” and “.xin” respectively, the disputed domain names consist of “bytedance”, which is identical with the Complainant’s registered marks. The Panel, therefore, finds that the disputed domain names <bytedance.xin> and <bytedance.one> are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered marks BYTEDANCE. Accordingly, the Complainant has proven the element required by paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. D. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Complainant asserts, and provides the evidence to demonstrate, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names and, as stated above, the Respondent did not provide any information to the Panel asserting any rights or legitimate interests it may have in the disputed domain names <bytedance.xin> and <bytedance.one>. It is apparent from the Complaint that there is no connection between the Respondent and the Complainant or its business. Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy lists a number of circumstances which can demonstrate a respondent’s rights or legitimate interests in a domain name. However, there is no evidence before the Panel that any of the situations described in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy apply here. To the contrary, the lack of any Response leads the Panel to draw a negative inference. Since there is no evidence before the Panel that the Respondent has any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names <bytedance.xin> and <bytedance.one>, the Panel finds that the Complainant has proven the element required by paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. E. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Complainant contends that the Respondent registered and used the disputed domain names <bytedance.xin> and <bytedance.one> in bad faith. The Respondent made no submission to refute the Complainant’s contention. The Panel notes that the Complainant has been using the registered marks BYTEDANCE on the Internet services in China, where the Respondent resides. Given the market influence of the Complainant’s marks in the Chinese Internet community, it is reasonable to presume that the Respondent chose to register the disputed domain names (<bytedance.xin> and <bytedance.one>) confusingly similar to the Complainant’s marks on purpose. The Panel finds that the Respondent’s engagement in a pattern of conduct to prevent the Complainant from reflecting its BYTEDANCE marks in the two disputed domain names <bytedance.xin> and <bytedance.one> constitutes further evidence of bad faith under paragraph 4(b) (ii) of the Policy. The Panel, therefore, finds that the Complainant has successfully proven the element required by 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 names <bytedance.xin> and <bytedance.one> be transferred to the Complainant. Dr. Hong Xue Sole Panelist Date: July 28, 2021
Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.
What Westmore sees around bytedance.one
The decision is only the record. Westmore connects it to the cases, authorities, panelists, parties and domain evidence surrounding it.
A short, grounded explanation drawn only from this decision's record — not legal advice or a prediction.
Grounded in the Westmore record for this decision. Research/informational only — not legal advice or a prediction of any outcome.
The decision is only the beginning.
You've seen what happened. Now discover the deeper intelligence behind the case, the panelist, the parties and the authorities that matter.
Go beyond the public record: see how this case has been cited, find comparable decisions, analyze the panelist and apply the relevant authorities to your Matter.
Westmore Professional · $395/month
Research with UDRP IntelligenceWestmore AI drafts an attorney-review-ready UDRP response from your facts, grounded in the exact panel and closest precedent.
$895 one-time per matter · no subscription required. Self-help drafting aid — not legal advice.
Build your responseWestmore UDRP records draw on WIPO-indexed decisions and are provided for research and informational purposes only. Not legal advice, a clearance opinion, or a prediction of any outcome.