Westmore · UDRP DecisionTencentmetaverse.com
The Panel ordered transfer of <tencentmetaverse.com>. It found the domain confusingly similar to the Complainants’ TENCENT mark because it incorporated the mark in its entirety and left it recognizable. The Complainants established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacked rights or legitimate interests, which the Respondent did not rebut. Bad faith registration and use were established from the reputation of TENCENT, the Panel’s finding that the Respondent could not plausibly have registered the domain without knowledge of the mark, and the domain’s use for a parking page prominently offering it for sale.
The timeline behind tencentmetaverse.com
Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.
The case illustrates a straightforward UDRP transfer where a domain reproduces a well-known mark, adds a topical term, and is then displayed on a parking page as being for sale. The decision also demonstrates that an unrebutted prima facie case can satisfy the second element and that a sale page may support bad faith when combined with strong evidence of the mark’s reputation and the respondent’s likely knowledge.
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 Tencent Holdings Limited, Tencent Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. v. Domain Administrator, See PrivacyGuardian.org / chenghao chen Case No. D2021-3605 1. The Parties The Complainants are Tencent Holdings Limited, Cayman Islands, United Kingdom and Tencent Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd., China, represented by Beijing Lusheng (Guangzhou) Law Firm, China. The Respondent is Domain Administrator, See PrivacyGuardian.org, United States of America (“United States”) / chenghao chen, China. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <tencentmetaverse.com> is registered with NameSilo, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on October 29, 2021. On October 29, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On October 29, 2021, 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 Complainants on November 3, 2021, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainants to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainants filed an amended Complaint on November 4, 2021. 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 8, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was November 28, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on November 30, 2021. The Center appointed James Wang as the sole panelist in this matter on December 21, 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 Complainants are members of Tencent, a global Internet and technology company established in 1998 and headquartered in Shenzhen, China. The Complainants provide Internet, mobile and telecommunication services and products, including in entertainment, artificial intelligence, and technology in China and globally. Some of the most popular products of the Complainants include QQ instant messenger, social media application WeChat, Tencent Games, Tencent Video, Tencent News, and Tencent Sports. TENCENT trademarked products and services have been advertised through the website “www.tencent.com” since 1998. The Complainants have provided evidence to show that the TENCENT brand is widely known in the world: - Ranking No. 1 of 2021 Brandz Top 100 Most Valuable Chinese Brands; - Ranking No. 5 of 2021 Brandz Top 100 Most Valuable Global Brands; and - Ranking No. 132 of Fortune Global 500 (2021). The Complainants have registered, among others, the following TENCENT trademarks worldwide in China, India, European Union, and United States: - China trademark registration No. 1752676, registered on April 21, 2002, in class 9; - China trademark registration No. 1962826, registered on February 28, 2003, in class 38; - India trademark registration No. 1583970, registered on July 25, 2007, in class 9, 38, 41, and 42; - European Union trademark registration No. 006033773, registered on November 18, 2008, in class 9, 38, 41, and 42; and - United States trademark registration No. 5980417, registered on February 11, 2020, in class 9, 16, 35, 38, 41, 42, and 45. The disputed domain name was registered on April 9, 2021. The disputed domain name resolved to a website offering the disputed domain name for sale. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainants The Complainants contended as follows: The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the TENCENT trademark in which the Complainants have rights. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The Complainants have never authorized or permitted the Respondent to use the TENCENT trademark or register any domain name consisting of the TENCENT trademark. The Respondent is not affiliated with the Complainants in any manner, nor has any authorization, licensing, or other business relationship with the Complainants or their affiliated companies. The TENCENT trademark is well known worldwide and the Respondent had constructive notice of the Complainants’ TENCENT trademark. The Complainants have sent a cease-and-desist letter to the Respondent, but the Respondent did not respond despite a few reminders and continued to offer for sale of the disputed domain name. Therefore the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. The Complainants requested that the disputed domain name be transferred to the Complainants. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainants’ contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings 6.1 Preliminary Issue: Consolidation The Complainants are Tencent Holdings Limited and Tencent Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. Since the two Complainants submit their evidence together and the Respondent’s conduct has affected the Complainants in a similar fashion, it is the Panel’s view that it is equitable and procedurally efficient to permit the consolidation of this Complaint filed by two Complainants against the single Respondent. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“ WIPO Overview 3.0 ”), section 4.11.1. 6.2 Substantive Elements According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainants must prove that: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainants have rights; and (ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and (iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainants have provided evidence that they have registered (before the date of registration of the disputed domain name) TENCENT trademarks in a number of jurisdictions, including in China, India, European Union, and United States. The disputed domain name incorporates the entirety of the TENCENT trademark. As the TENCENT trademark is recognizable within the disputed domain name, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the TENCENT trademark of the Complainants. See WIPO Overview 3.0 , sections 1.7 and 1.8. The Panel therefore finds that the Complaint has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Proving a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the often impossible task of “proving a negative”, requiring information that is often primarily within the knowledge or control of the respondent. As such, where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name; the burden of proof always rests however with the complainant. If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element. See WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 2.1. According to the Complaint, the Complainants have never authorized or permitted the Respondent to use the TENCENT trademark or register any domain name consisting of the TENCENT trademark. The Respondent is not affiliated with the Complainants in any manner, nor has any authorization, licensing, or other business relationship with the Complainants or their affiliated companies. The Respondent filed no response to these allegations of the Complainants. The Panel finds that the Complainants have made a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, and the Respondent failed to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Panel therefore finds that the Complaint has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Complainants have provided evidence that the TENCENT trademark of the Complainants has been well known worldwide. The TENCENT trademark is exclusively associated with the Complainants and known primarily as an identifier of the products and services of the Complainants. Given the reputation of the Complainants and the TENCENT trademark, the Panel agrees with the contention of the Complainants that it is inconceivable that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name without knowledge of the TENCENT trademark at the time of the registration, as a simple Internet search would have revealed the Complainants and the famous TENCENT trademark. The Panel concludes that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith. The Complainants have also provided evidence that the disputed domain name was resolved to a parking website offering it for sale. According to a screenshot of the website at the disputed domain name taken by the Complainants on October 26, 2021, the disputed domain name resolved to a website prominently showing that it is for sale. This indicates that the Respondent’s intent in registering or acquiring the disputed domain name was to profit in some fashion from or otherwise exploit the Complainants’ trademark. Accordingly, there is clear bad faith on the part of the Respondent. See WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 3.1.1. The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith, and the Complaint has satisfied 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 <tencentmetaverse.com> be transferred to the Complainants. James Wang Sole Panelist Date: January 4, 2021
Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.
What Westmore sees around tencentmetaverse.com
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.