Ankeraucharger.com + 25 more domains

The timeline behind ankeraucharger.com

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.

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 Anker Innovations Limited v. Yaomine Hanlon, claudia schmitt, 吴鹢 (wu yi) , 黄保传 (bao chuan huang), gratis Wolfgang, Wolfgang gratis, Christina Buschermoehle, StefanEngelhardt, Stefan Engelhardt, Marisa Celik, Michael George, Edwards Birgit, Laura F Herman, Diana S Schwab, Donald S Toon, Christian H Papst, Niklas J Moeller Case No. D2026-0617 1. The Parties The Complainant is Anker Innovations Limited, China, represented by Advance China IP Law Office, China. The Respondents are Yaomine Hanlon, Germany (“Alias 1”); claudia schmitt, Germany (“Alias 2”); 吴鹢 (wu yi), China (“Alias 3”); 黄保传 (bao chuan huang), China (“Alias 4”); gratis Wolfgang, Wolfgang gratis, Germany (“Alias 5”); Christina Buschermoehle, Germany (“Alias 6”); StefanEngelhardt, Stefan Engelhardt, Germany (“Alias 7”); Michael George, United States of America (“United States”) (“Alias 8”); Edwards Birgit, United States (“Alias 9”); Laura F Herman, Germany (“Alias 10”); Diana S Schwab, Germany (“Alias 11”); Donald S Toon, Germany (“Alias 12”); Christian H Papst, Germany (“Alias 13”); Niklas J Moeller, Germany (“Alias 14”); and Marisa Celik, Germany (“Alias 15”); 2. The Domain Names and Registrars The disputed domain name <ankersitalia.com> is registered with Xiamen 35.Com Information Co., Ltd. (“Registrar A”). The disputed domain names <anker-egypt.com>, <anker-saudiarabia.com> are registered with CNOBIN Information Technology Limited (“Registrar B”). The disputed domain names <ankeraucharger.com>, <ankerpowerbankitalia.com>, <ankerpowerbankfr.com>, and <ankerpowerbanknz.com> are registered with Vantage of Convergence (Chengdu) Technology Co., Ltd. (“Registrar C”). The disputed domain names <ankerpowerbankespana.com>, and <ankerpowerbankmexico.com> are registered with Key-Systems GmbH (“Registrar D”). The disputed domain names <ankerpowerbankchile.com>, and <ankerpowerbanknl.com> are registered with Metaregistrar BV (“Registrar E”). page 2 The disputed domain names <ankerdepowerbank.com>, and <ankerpowerbankireland.com> are registered with Gransy, s.r.o. d/b/a subreg.cz (“Registrar F”). The disputed domain names <ankerindiapowerbank.com>, <ankerpowerbankmalaysia.com>, and <ankerpowerbankphilippines.com> are registered with Hosting Concepts B.V. d/b/a Registrar.eu. (“Registrar G”). The disputed domain name <ankershungary.com> is registered with Xin Net Technology Corp (北京新网数码 信息技术有限公司) (“Registrar H”). The disputed domain names <ankerpowerbankdubai.com>, <ankerpowerbanksouthafrica.com>, <soundcoredk.com>, <soundcorehr.com>, <soundcoreie.com>, <soundcoreno.com>, <soundcoreschweiz.com> are registered with Dynadot Inc (“Registrar I”) The disputed domain names <ankerindonesiacharger.com>, and <ankerpowerbankthailand.com> are registered with Mat Bao Corporation (“Registrar J”). Registrars A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I and J are referred to individually and collectively as the “Registrar”. 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed in English with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on February 13, 2026. On February 13, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar requests for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On February 14, February 16, February 18, February 21, February 26, and February 27, 2026 the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain names which differed from the named Respondents (Registration Private, Not Disclosed, Domain Admin, Super Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot) and contact information in the Complaint. On March 2, 2026, the Center informed the Parties in Chinese and English, that the language of the registration agreement for the disputed domain names <ankershungary.com>, <ankeraucharger.com>, <ankerpowerbankitalia.com>, <ankerpowerbankfr.com>, <ankerpowerbanknz.com>, and <ankersitalia.com> is Chinese. On March 6, 2026, the Complainant confirmed its request that English be the language of the proceeding. The Respondents did not submit any comment on the Complainant’s submission. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on March 2, 2026 with the registrant and contact information of nominally multiple underlying registrants revealed by the Registrar, requesting the Complainant to either file separate complaint(s) for the disputed domain names associated with different underlying registrants or alternatively, demonstrate that the underlying registrants are in fact the same entity and/or that all domain names are under common control. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on March 6, 2026. 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 Respondents in Chinese and English of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on March 11, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 31, 2026. The Respondents did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondents’ default on April 13, 2026. page 3 The Center appointed Karen Fong as the sole panelist in this matter on April 17, 2026. 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 Based in Hong Kong, China, the Complainant was established in 2011 and together with its associated company engages in the research, development, design and sale of consumer electronic products such as mobile device peripheral products and smart hardware under the brand ANKER. ANKER products are sold in more than 100 countries through online and offline means. They are available on the leading e-commerce platforms like Amazon, eBay and Ali Express as well bricks and mortar retailers like BestBuy and Walmart. The Complainant’s revenue in 2019 was around USD 954 million and grew to USD 1.8 billion in 2021. The Complainant’s portable battery chargers have been the best selling charger on Amazon for many years. The Complainant has received many awards and accolades including being recognized as the 10 th Top 50 BrandZ Chinese Global Brand Builders by the market research firm Kantar. It was also listed as one of the Global E-Retailers of the Year by Internet Retailers in 2017. The Complainant’s wireless audio products including speakers and headphones are sold under the brand SOUNDCORE. The ANKER and SOUNDCORE brands are registered as trade marks in many jurisdictions around the world. The ANKER trade mark registrations include the following: • European Union Trade Mark Registration No. 10358406 for ANKER registered on April 26.2012; and • Internation Registration Trade Mark Registration No. 1765371 for ANKER INNOVATIONS & Device registered on 22 June 2023. (individually and collectively, the “ANKER Mark”). The SOUNDCORE trade mark registrations include the following: • European Union Trade Mark Registration No. 15223712 for SOUNDCORE registered on August 12, 2016; and • Swiss Trade Mark Registration No. 737218 for SOUNDCORE (Stylised) registered on October 16, 2019. (individually and collectively, the “SOUNDCORE Mark”). The ANKER Mark and SOUNDCORE Mark are individually and collectively referred to as the “Trade Mark”. The disputed domain names (the “Domain Names”) and the websites they resolve to (the “Websites”) are set out below: page 4 N. Domain Name Creation Date Reg. Alias No. Registrar No. Websites and Comments 1 <ankeraucharger.com> Nov 27, 2025 4 C Resolved to an e- commerce website offering for sale electronic products including chargers, USB cables and power banks bearing the ANKER Mark at a discounted price with some images taken from the Complainant’s website. The Website bears the ANKER Mark in the Complainant’s stylized form. Same email address as Domain Name Nos. 9, 11, 15 and 20. 2 <ankerdepowerbank.com> Nov 27, 2025 15 F As in Website 1 above. Same email address as Domain Name Nos. 4, 10 and 12. 3 <anker-egypt.com> Nov 27, 2025 5 B As in Website 1 above. Same email address as Domain Name No. 19. 4 <ankerindiapowerbank.com> Nov 27, 2025 1 G As in Website 1 above. Same email address as Domain Name Nos. 2, 10 and 12. 5 <ankerindonesiacharger.com> Nov 27, 2025 8 J As in Website 1 above. Same email address as Domain Name No. 18. 6 <ankerpowerbankchile.com> Nov 28, 2025 7 E As in Website 1 above. Same email address as Domain Name No. 14. 7 <ankerpowerbankdubai.com> Nov 27, 2025 9 I As in Website 1 above. Same email address as Domain Name No. 17. 8 <ankerpowerbankespana.com> Nov 28, 2025 6 D As in Website 1 above. Same email address as Domain Name No. 13. 9 <ankerpowerbankfr.com> Nov 27, 2025 4 C As in Website 1 above. Same email address as Domain Name Nos. 1, 11, 15 and 20. page 5 10 <ankerpowerbankireland.com> Nov27, 2025 15 F As in Website 1 above. Same email address as Domain Name Nos. 2, 4 and 12. 11 <ankerpowerbankitalia.com> Nov27, 2025 4 C As in Website 1 above. Same email address as Domain Name Nos. 1, 9, 15 and 20. 12 <ankerpowerbankmalaysia.com> Nov 27, 2025 1 G As in Website 1 above. Same email address as Domain Name Nos. 2, 4 and 10. 13 <ankerpowerbankmexico.com> Nov 28, 2025 6 D As in Website 1 above. Same email address as Domain Name No. 8. 14 <ankerpowerbanknl.com> Nov 28, 2025 7 E As in Website 1 above. Same email address as Domain Name No. 6. 15 <ankerpowerbanknz.com> Nov 27, 2025 4 C As in Website 1 above. Same email address as Domain Name Nos. 1, 9, 11 and 20. 16 <ankerpowerbankphilippines.com> Nov 27, 2025 2 G As in Website 1 above. 17 <ankerpowerbanksouthafrica.com> Nov 27, 2025 9 I As in Website 1 above. Same email address as Domain Name No. 7. 18 <ankerpowerbankthailand.com> Nov 27, 2025 8 J As in Website 1 above. Same email address as Domain Name No. 5. 19 <anker-saudiarabia.com> Nov 27, 2025 5 B As in Website 1 above. Same email address as Domain Name No. 3. 20 <ankershungary.com> Oct 11, 2025 3 H As in Website 1 above. Same email address as Domain Name Nos. 1, 9, 11 and 15. 21 <ankersitalia.com> Nov 24, 2025 4 A As in Website 1 above. Same registrant name as Domain Name Nos. 1.9.11, and 15. 22 <soundcoredk.com> Oct 20, 2025 10 I Resolved to a website with the homepage showing what purports to be an page 6 “ANKER” shop bearing signage of the ANKER Mark in the Complainant’s stylized form and displaying packaged products bearing the Complainant’s ANKER Mark. The website is an e- commerce website offering for sale audio accessories including headphones and ear pods. Same email address as Domain Name Nos. 23, 25 and 26. 23 <soundcorehr.com> Oct 20, 2025 11 I As in 22 above. Same email address as Domain Name Nos. 22, 25 and 26. 24 <soundcoreie.com> Oct 20, 2025 12 I Resolved to a website with the homepage showing what purports to be an “ANKER” shop bearing signage of the ANKER Mark in the Complainant’s stylized form and displaying packaged products bearing the Complainant’s ANKER Mark. The website is an e- commerce website which bears the SOUNDCORE Mark offering for sale headphones. 25 <soundcoreno.com> Oct 20, 2025 13 I As in 24 above. Same email address as Domain Name Nos. 22, 23 and 26. 26 <soundcoreschweiz.com> Oct 20, 2025 14 I As in 24 above. Same email address as Domain Name Nos. 22, 23 and 25. page 7 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the Domain Names. Notably, the Complainant contends that the Domain Names are confusingly similar to the Trade Mark in which it has rights, that the Respondents have no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the Domain Names, and that the Domain Names were registered and are being used in bad faith. The Complainant requests transfer of the Domain Names. B. Respondents The Respondents did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings 6.1. Preliminary Issues A. Consolidation: Multiple Respondents The amended Complaint was filed in relation to nominally different domain name registrants. The Complainant alleges that the Domain Name registrants are the same entity or mere alter egos of each other, or under common control. The Complainant requests the consolidation of the Complaint against the multiple Domain Name registrants pursuant to paragraph 10(e) of the Rules. The Domain Name registrants did not comment on the Complainant’s request. Paragraph 3(c) of the Rules states that a complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that the domain names are registered by the same domain name holder. In addressing the Complainant’s request, the Panel will consider whether (i) the Domain Names or corresponding websites are subject to common control; and (ii) the consolidation would be fair and equitable to all Parties. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Select UDRP Questions (“WIPO Overview 3.1”), section 4.11.2. As regards common control, the Panel notes the following: (1) All the Domain Names comprise either the ANKER Mark or the SOUNDCORE Mark as part of the Domain Names; (2) All the Domain Names were registered through the Registrar between October 11 and November 28, 2025; (3) The email addresses of all the Respondents are free public email accounts with hotmail/outlook second level domains which is inconsistent with the practice of legitimate commercial entities registering domain names; (4) All the Domain Names resolve to Websites which purport to be online stores selling the Complainant’s products. All the Domain Names which comprise the ANKER Mark as part of the domain name have websites which are identical or almost identical with each other whilst all the Domain Names which comprise the SOUNDCORE Mark as part of the domain name have websites which are identical or almost identical with each other. page 8 (5) All the Domain Names have the same naming structure which include the Trade Mark and either a geographical name and a descriptive element such as “charger” or “powerbank” or just a geographical name. (6) The 26 Domain Names are registered in 15 names and 10 Registrars. (7) The five Domain Names (Domain Names Nos. 22-25) which have the SOUNDCORE Mark as part of their domain name are all registered with Registrar I which is also the Registrar for Domain Name Nos. 7 and 17 which have the ANKER Mark as part of their domain name and are also both registered to Alias 9. (8) The Respondents failed to file responses. The evidence submitted points to the fact that all the Domain Names are subject of common control by the Respondents. The above pattern evidences common conduct based on the registration and use of the Domain Names and that such conduct interferes with the Trade Mark. The Respondents had the opportunity but did not respond to the Complaint. As regards fairness and equity, the Panel sees no reason why consolidation of the disputes would be unfair or inequitable to any Party. Accordingly, the Panel decides to consolidate the disputes regarding the nominally different Domain Name registrants (referred to below as “the Respondent”) in a single proceeding. B. Language of the Proceeding The language of the Registration Agreement for Domain Name Nos. 1, 9, 11, 15, 20, and 21 registered with Registrars A, C and H is Chinese. Pursuant to the Rules, paragraph 11(a), in the absence of an agreement between the parties, or unless specified otherwise in the registration agreement, the language of the administrative proceeding shall be the language of the registration agreement. The Complaint was filed in English. The Complainant requested that the language of the proceeding be English. It is noted that 20 out of the 26 Domain Names were registered with Registration Agreements in English and 13 out of the 15 registrant names have addresses outside of China. It is also noted that all the Websites are In English. Given that all the Domain Names are under the common control of the Respondent, this is a clear indication that the Respondent is familiar and understands the English language. The Respondent has not challenged the Complainant’s language request and in fact has failed to file a response in either English or Chinese. In exercising its discretion to use a language other than that of the registration agreement, the Panel has to exercise such discretion judicially in the spirit of fairness and justice to both parties, taking into account all relevant circumstances of the case, including matters such as the parties’ ability to understand and use the proposed language, time and costs (see WIPO Overview 3.1, section 4.5.1). Having considered all the matters above, the Panel determines under paragraph 11(a) of the Rules that the language of the proceeding shall be English. 6.2 Substantive Issues 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 trade mark and the disputed domain names. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.7. Based on the available record, the Panel finds the Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trade mark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.2.1. page 9 The Panel finds the entirety of the Trade Mark is reproduced within the Domain Names. Accordingly, the Domain Names are confusingly similar to the Trade Mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.7. While the addition of the terms “charger”, “powerbank”, “au”, “de”, “eqypt”, “india”, “indonesia”, “chile”, “dubai”, “espana”, “fr”, “ireland”, “italia”, “malaysia”, “mexico”, “nl”, “nz”, “philippines”, “southafrica”, “thailand”, “saudiarabia”, “hungary”, “s”, “dk”, “hr”, “ie”, “no” and “schweiz” after the Trade Mark may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds the addition of these words does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the Domain Names and the Trade Mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.8. Based on the available record, 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. 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 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. If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.1. Having reviewed the record, the Panel finds the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names. The Respondent has not rebutted the Complainant’s prima facie showing and has not come forward with any relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise. Based on the available record, 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 must have been aware of the Trade Mark when it registered the Domain Names given the reputation of the Trade Mark and the fact that 17 out of the 26 Domain Names have the words “charger” or “powerbank” which are the core products of the Complainant. It is therefore implausible that the Respondent was unaware of the Complainant when it registered the Domain Names. In the WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.2.2 states as follows: “Noting the near instantaneous and global reach of the Internet and search engines, and particularly in circumstances where the complainant’s mark is widely known (including in its sector) or highly specific and a respondent cannot credibly claim to have been unaware of the mark (particularly in the case of domainers), panels have been prepared to infer that the respondent knew, or have found that the respondent should have known, that its registration would be identical or confusingly similar to a complainant’s mark. Further factors including the nature of the domain name, the chosen top-level domain, any use of the domain name, or any respondent pattern, may obviate a respondent’s claim not to have been aware of the complainant’s mark.” page 10 The fact that there is a clear absence of rights or legitimate interests coupled with the Respondent’s choice of the 26 Domain Names without any explanation is also a significant factor to consider (as stated in WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.2.1). The Domain Names fall into the category stated above and the Panel finds that the registration is in bad faith. The Domain Names are also being used in bad faith. The unauthorised use of the Complainant’s Trade Mark, its images and offer for sale of the Complainant’s products on the Websites without authorisation are calculated to mislead Internet users to believe its affiliation with the Complainant. Further, the large number of Domain Names involved is a clear indication of a serial cybersquatting ring. The content of some of the Websites was calculated to give the impression they have been authorised by or connected to the Complainant when this is not the case. These Websites were set up to deliberately mislead Internet users that they are connected to, authorised by, or affiliated with the Complainant. The Respondent employed the fame of the Trade Mark to mislead Internet users into visiting the Websites instead of the Complainant’s particularly as the Websites do not have any information as to the relationship with the Complainant. From the above, the Panel concludes that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, by misleading Internet users into believing that the Websites and the products purportedly offered for sale and sold on them are those of or authorised or endorsed by the Complainant. It is highly likely that Internet users, when typing the Domain Names into their browser or finding them through a search engine, would have been looking for a site operated by the Complainant rather than the Respondent. The Domain Names are likely to confuse Internet users trying to find the Complainant’s official website. Such confusion will inevitably result due to the fact that all the Domain Names comprise the Trade Mark as the dominant element of the Trade Mark. The Panel therefore also concludes that the Domain Names were registered and are being used in bad faith under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. Based on the available record, the Panel finds the third element of the Policy has been established. 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 Domain Names <ankeraucharger.com>, <ankerdepowerbank.com>, <anker-egypt.com>, <ankerindiapowerbank.com>, <ankerindonesiacharger.com>, <ankerpowerbankchile.com>, <ankerpowerbankdubai.com>, <ankerpowerbankespana.com>, <ankerpowerbankfr.com>, <ankerpowerbankireland.com>, <ankerpowerbankitalia.com>, <ankerpowerbankmalaysia.com>, <ankerpowerbankmexico.com>, <ankerpowerbanknl.com>, <ankerpowerbanknz.com>, <ankerpowerbankphilippines.com>, <ankerpowerbanksouthafrica.com>, <ankerpowerbankthailand.com>, <anker-saudiarabia.com>, <ankershungary.com>, <ankersitalia.com>, <soundcoredk.com>, <soundcorehr.com>, <soundcoreie.com>, <soundcoreno.com>, <soundcoreschweiz.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /Karen Fong/ Karen Fong Sole Panelist Date: May 13, 2026

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