Tiktok18.biz

The timeline behind tiktok18.biz

Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.

Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.

ARBITRATION AN D MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION TikTok Ltd. v. pritam chowdhury Case No. D2023-3979 1. The Parties The Complainant is TikTok Ltd., Cayman Islands, represented by CSC Digital Brand Services Group AB, Sweden. The Respondent is pritam chowdhury, India. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <tiktok18.biz> is registered with NameCheap, Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on September 22, 2023. On September 25, 2023, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request f or registrar verif ication in connection with the disputed domain name. On September 25, 2023, 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 (Redacted for Privacy, Privacy service provided by Withheld f or Privacy ehf) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on September 26, 2023, 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 September 28, 2023. The Center verif ied that the Complaint together with the amended Complaint satisf ied the f ormal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules f or Unif orm Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules f or Unif orm Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”). In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center f ormally notif ied the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on September 29, 2023. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was October 19, 2023. The Respondent did not submit any f ormal response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Commencement of Panel Appointment Process on October 20, 2023. The Respondent sent email communications to the Center on September 30, October 21 and 26, 2023. The Center sent a possible settlement email to the Parties on October 2, 2023. The Complainant sent page 2 an inf ormal communication to the Center on October 27, 2023, but did not request a suspension of the proceedings. The Center appointed Zoltán Takács as the sole panelist in this matter on October 26, 2023. The Panel f inds 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, parag rap h 7. 4. Factual Background The Complainant is an Internet technology company that serves as a host f or the content created by its users. The Complainant’s services are available in more than 150 markets and in 75 languages worldwide. Since its launch in 2017 in the Google Play Sto re, more than 1 billion users have downloaded the Complainant’s Tik Tok app. In 2022, Tik Tok was the most downloaded app in the United States of America (“United States”) and globally. The Complainant’s parent company Bytedance Ltd. among others owns the f ollowing trademark registrations in India, the Respondent’s apparent domicile: - Trade Mark Registration No. 3960172 for the word mark TIK TOK, registered on September 29, 2018, for goods and services of classes 16, 18, 20, 26, 41, and 45 of the Nice Agreement Concerning the International Classif ication of Good and Services for the Purpose of the Registration of Marks (“Nice Classif ication”), and - Trademark Registration No. 3853842 for a f igurative trademark, registered on June 7, 2018, for services of class 35 of the Nice Classif ication (hereinaf ter also ref erred to as “trademarks”). The Complainant has a large Internet presence through its primary website “www.tiktok.com”, which had a total of 2.3 billion visitors between June and August of 2023, making it the 14th most popular website globally and 21st most popular website in the United States. The corresponding domain name <tiktok.com> was registered on July 21, 1996. The disputed domain name was registered on November 1, 2022, and resolved to a website that f eatured the Complainant’s trademarks and promoted explicit sexual content. Currently, the disputed domain name does not resolve to an active website. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy f or a transf er of the disputed domain name. Notably, the Complainant contends that: - the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the TIK TOK trademark, since it incorporates the trademark with the addition of the number “18”; - the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, and - the Respondent registered the disputed domain name in order to unlawf ully benef it f rom the goodwill built up in the well-known TIK TOK trademark and in addition, linking of the disputed domain name to a website with pornographic content is harmful for the Complainant’s brand image and could tarnish its trademark and reputation. page 3 The Complainant requests that the disputed domain name be transf erred f rom the Respondent to the Complainant. B. Respondent The Respondent did not file a formal Response to the Complaint but sent a couple of inf ormal emails to the Center, which do not contain any argumentation against the f acts and evidence presented by the Complainant in support of its claim. For example, the September 30, 2023 dated email of the Respondent reads: “I have already closed all of my websites that you are Claiming to containing your trademarks, I do not have any kind of rights to edit or promote the application And that's why I'm sending you this message. I want the clearance of all kinds of problems But one thing you should know that Check chatGptapp.us or whatever it was, It's not my property I have already sold it in Namecheap so do your research first then claim it. To sum up, I want you guys to do not disturb me again by sending a couple of emails and attachments on my email. It's very f rustrating, and I won't tolerate this again.We are done now.” On October 26, 2023, the Respondent sent another email to the Center, which reads: “Hello in the last email f rom you said that ‘As per the latest emails f rom WIPO, this case has now commenced. Please let us know if you would like to resolve this matter amicably by agreeing to transf er the domain name to TikTok. If you do agree to a voluntary transfer, I will request to suspend the case.’ and I said this ‘ Yes, I agree. Transfer domains and I don't want to continue this case, I will request you to suspend the case.’” 6. Discussion and Findings Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules requires that the Panel’s decision be made “on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable”. A complainant must evidence each of the three elements required by paragraph 4(a) of the Policy in order to succeed on the complaint, namely that: (i) the domain name is identical or conf usingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; (ii) the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and (iii) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad f aith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar It is well accepted that the f irst element f unctions primarily as a standing requirement. The standing (or threshold) test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition, (“WIPO Overview 3.0 ”), section 1.7. Based on the available record, the Panel finds the Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trademark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1. A trademark owner’s af f iliate such as a subsidiary of a parent or of a holding company, or an exclusive trademark licensee, is considered to have rights in a trademark under the UDRP f or purposes of standing to f ile a complaint. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.4.1. page 4 The entirety of the TIK TOK trademark is reproduced in the disputed domain name. The only dif f erence between the trademark and the disputed domain name is the addition of the number “18” to the trademark in the disputed domain name, which does not prevent a finding of conf using similarity. WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 1.8. The applicable Top-Level Domain (“TLD”) in the disputed domain name (in this case “.biz”), which is a standard registration requirement is generally disregarded under the first element conf using similarity test. WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 1.11.1. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the mark f or the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 1.7. Based on the available record, the Panel f inds that the f irst element of the Policy has been established. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances in which the Respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name. While the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, panels have recognized that proving a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the often impossible task of “proving a negative”, requiring inf ormation that is of ten primarily within the knowledge 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 f orward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the respondent f ails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element. WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 2.1. Having reviewed the record, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent has not rebutted the Complainant’s prima facie showing and has not come f orward with any relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise. The Panel considers that the record of this case ref lects that: - bef ore any notice to the Respondent of the dispute, the Respondent did not use, nor has made demonstrable preparations to use the disputed domain name or a name corresponding to the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy, and WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 2.2; - the Respondent (as an individual, business, or other organization) has not been commonly known b y the disputed domain name. Paragraph 4(c)(ii) of the Policy, and WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 2.3; - the Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or f air use of the disputed domain name, without intent f or commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue. Paragraph 4(c)(iii) of the Policy, and WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 2.4, and - the record contains no other f actors demonstrating rig hts or legitimate interests of the Respondent in the disputed domain name. The Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name in connection with a website f eaturing the Complainant’s trademark, allegedly of f ering f or download an application in competition with that of the Complainant, and generally offering explicit sexual content does not correspond to any of the circumstances set f orth in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy. page 5 Based on the available record, the Panel f inds the second element of the Policy has been established. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel notes that f or the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, paragraph 4(b) of the Policy establishes circumstances, in particular but without limitation, that if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad f aith. In the present case, the Panel notes that the Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name constitutes bad f aith under the Policy. The Panel considers that the record of this case reflects that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website or other on-line locations, by creating a likelihood of conf usion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, af f iliation, or endorsement of the Respondent’s website or location or of a product or service on the Respondent’s website or location. Paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy, and WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 3.1.4. It has been well-established in prior decisions under the UDRP, with which the Panel agrees, that the Complainant’s TIK TOK trademark is well known (see e.g. Bytedance Ltd. v. Stanley Billy, Natasha Selly, WIPO Case No . D2020-1749 and Bytedance Ltd., Beijing Bytedance Technology Co. Ltd v. PrivacyGuardian.org / Franz Augusto, WIPO Case No. D2021-3036). UDRP panels have consistently found that the mere registration of a domain name that is identical or conf usingly similar to a f amous or widely-known trademark by an unaf f iliated entity can by itself create a presumption of bad f aith. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.1.4. The Respondent replicated the well-known TIK TOK trademark in the disputed domain name and the website at the disputed domain name prominently f eatured the Complainant’s trademarks. Hence, in the Panel’s view the Respondent clearly had the TIK TOK trademark in mind at the time of registration and that it registered the disputed domain name in order to target the Complainant and its well-known trademark within the meaning of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. In addition, the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to divert Internet users to a website of explicit sexual content could reasonably be supposed to tarnish the Complainant’s mark and can itself constitute bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 3.12. and CCA Industries, Inc. v. Bobby R.Dailey, WIPO Case No . D2000-0148. Currently, the disputed domain name does not resolve to an active website. However, having reviewed the record, the Panel notes the distinctiveness and well-known status of the Complainant’s trademark, the composition of the disputed domain name as mentioned above, the Respondent’s failure to provide any good f aith explanation as to its registration of the disputed domain name, as well as that any good f aith use to which the disputed domain name may be put appears to be implausible. Accordingly, the Panel finds that in the circumstances of this case the passive holding of the disputed domain name does not prevent a f inding of bad f aith under the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 3.3. Based on the available record, the Panel f inds that the third element of the Policy has b een established. page 6 7. Decision For the f oregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain name <tiktok18.biz> be transf erred to the Complainant. /Zoltán Takács/ Zoltán Takács Sole Panelist Date: November 9, 2023

Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.