Samsungcorning.com

The timeline behind samsungcorning.com

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 AND MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Corning Incorporated, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. li ding Case No. D2025-3574 1. The Parties The Complainants are Corning Incorporated and Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., United States of America (“United States” or “USA”), represented by Gowling WLG (Canada) LLP, United States. The Respondent is li ding, Cambodia. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <samsungcorning.com> 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 3, 2025. On September 4, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On September 5, 2025, 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) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainants on September 9, 2025, 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 amendment to the Complaint on September 9, 2025. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to the 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 September 12, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was October 2, 2025. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on October 6, 2025. page 2 The Center appointed Gilberto Martins de Almeida as the sole panelist in this matter on October 15, 2025. 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 Corning Incorporated (“Complainant 1”) and Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. (“Complainant 2”). The Complainant 1 is a well-established company known for developing and manufacturing materials used in electronics, telecommunications and other segments for over a century. The Complainant 2 is globally known technology company, famous for consumer electronics. The Complainants formed a joint venture since 2015, and since then, the Complainants have created three other companies involving the expressions “Samsung” and “Corning”. The Complainant 1 owns the Trademark Registration N. 618649 for CORNING, since January 3, 1956, filed in the USA (Exhibit 3). The Complainant 2 owns the Trademark Registration N. 4002842150000 for SAMSUNG, since February 2, 1994, filed in Republic of Korea (the). In addition to the registration numbers already mentioned, the Complainants own multiple other trademarks in several countries around the world, as shown in Exhibits 3 and 6. Regarding the disputed domain name, <samsungcorning.com>, it was registered on February 5, 2025. Currently, the disputed domain name resolves to a pay-per-click website, which advertises Complainants’ competitors goods and services. As for the Respondent, there is no information available. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainants contend that they have satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the disputed domain name. Notably, the Complainants contend that the Respondent used the disputed domain name to attract users to third party links, by way of confusion, as the disputed domain name incorporates trademarks previously registered by the Complainants. Accordingly, the Complainants also allege that the Respondent lacks any legitimate interest, as the Respondent seeks financial gain, given that the website contains advertisements for goods and services that compete with those provided by the Complainants. Moreover, the Complainants argue that both are well-known companies with presence in Asia, where the Respondent resides. Therefore, according to the Complainants, the Respondent’s bad faith should also be deemed evident, since he uses previously registered trademarks over which it holds no rights for its own financial benefit, and it is unlikely that the Respondent did not know these trademarks before registering them. The Complainants request that the disputed domain name be transferred to the Complainant 1, Corning. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainants’ contentions. page 3 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar It is well accepted that the first element functions 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. Both Complainants have shown rights in respect of a trademark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1. The entirety of both Complainants’ marks is reproduced within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is identical to the marks for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7. The Panel finds the first 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. Although the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, panels have recognized that proving that respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the difficult 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 (although the burden of proof always remains on the complainant). If the respondent fails 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 available record, the Panel finds the Complainants have established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent did not submit any response to the Complaint, therefore he has not rebutted the Complainants’ prima facie showing. The Panel finds the second element of the Policy has been established. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel notes that, for 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 faith. In the present case, the Panel notes that the Respondent intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark, which constitutes bad faith, as per paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. The Panel finds that the Complainants have established the third element of the Policy. page 4 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 <samsungcorning.com> be transferred to Complainant 1, Corning Incorporated. /Gilberto Martins de Almeida/ Gilberto Martins de Almeida Sole Panelist Date: October 29, 2025

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