Tokione.com

The timeline behind tokione.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 Tetsuya Watanabe v. hou jian hong Case No. D2026-1132 1. The Parties The Complainant is Tetsuya Watanabe, Japan, self-represented. The Respondent is hou jian hong, China. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <tokione.com> is registered with Gname.com Pte. Ltd. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed in English with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 17, 2026. On the same day, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On March 18, 2026, 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 Complainant on March 20, 2026, 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 in English on the same day. On March 20, 2026, the Center informed the Parties in Chinese and English, that the language of the Registration Agreement for the disputed domain name is Chinese. On March 20, 2026, the Complainant requested English to be the language of the proceeding. The Respondent did not submit any comment on the Complainant’s submission. 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”). page 2 In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent in Chinese and English of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on March 26, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was April 15, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on April 16, 2026. The Center appointed Matthew Kennedy as the sole panelist in this matter on April 28, 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. On May 7, 2026, the Panel issued Administrative Panel Procedural Order No. 1 (the “Panel Order”) in English and Chinese, in which it noted that the Complainant had provided a trademark registration certificate and invited the Complainant to provide evidence regarding its use of the mark prior to the registration of the disputed domain name in 2022 and to indicate whether, and if so, why the Complainant believed the Respondent was aware of and targeted the Complainant’s mark when registering the disputed domain name. The Panel also noted that the Complainant had provided a screenshot of the website associated with the disputed domain name in 2012, and invited the Complainant to explain why this screenshot would support its assertion that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. The Panel requested that the Complainant file any further submission by May 12, 2026 and gave the Respondent an opportunity to comment on the Complainant’s submission by May 17, 2026. The Panel extended the due date for the Decision to May 25, 2026. The Complainant made a supplemental submission in response to the Panel Order on May 8, 2026. The Respondent did not comment on that supplemental submission. 4. Factual Background The Complainant is a music producer, artist, and creative director based in Japan who has operated under the name “Tokione”. He has used that name in commerce since at least 2012 in connection with music production, artist development, and audiovisual works. He holds Japanese trademark registration number 5541950 for 東京音 TOKIONE トキオネ, in which the Kanji characters mean “Tokyo Sound”, the Latin script is a transliteration of the Kanji characters, and the Katakana characters are a phonetic transcription of the Latin script. This trademark was registered on December 7, 2012, specifying services in class 35, and it is current. The Complainant used the disputed domain name in connection with a website from at least 2012 until no later than July 2022. The website was titled “tokione東京音”, and provided news, information, and music recordings. The Complainant also operates a YouTube channel. The Respondent is an individual based in China. The disputed domain name was registered on August 26, 2022. The content of the associated website is not on the record because it is classified as dangerous by various Internet browsers. However, it is possible to read the favicon on archived screenshots of the website, which read “AG 直营第一品牌 真人游戏天生赢家” (meaning “AG, the No.1 Direct-Operated Brand, Born to Win in Live Gaming”) (as at July 14, 2025) and “PlayAce 直营第一品牌 天生赢家一路同行” (meaning “PlayAce, the No.1 Direct-Operated Brand, Born to Win All the Way Together”) (as at December 11, 2025). 1 1 The Panel notes its general powers articulated inter alia in paragraphs 10 and 12 of the Rules and has searched archived Web pages in the Internet Archive (www.archive.org), which is a matter of public record, because the website associated with the disputed domain name is now masked by Internet browser security warnings. The Panel considers this limited research useful in assessing the case merits and reaching a Decision. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Select UDRP Questions (“WIPO Overview 3.1”), section 4.8. page 3 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 disputed domain name. Notably, the Complainant contends that he has established recognition and goodwill in a TOKIONE mark through music releases and production work, YouTube publications and audiovisual content, public performances and media exposure. The disputed domain name is identical to his TOKIONE mark. The Complaint also annexes a copy of his Japanese trademark registration for 東京音 TOKIONE トキオネ. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The Respondent is not affiliated with the Complainant in any way and has never been authorized to use the TOKIONE mark. The disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Given the unique nature of the term “tokione”, it is highly unlikely that the Respondent was unaware of the Complainant’s rights at the time of registration of the disputed domain name. The Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name for unrelated, misleading, or potentially harmful content demonstrates opportunistic bad faith. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings 6.1. Language of the Proceeding The language of the Registration Agreement for the disputed domain name 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 and amended Complaint were filed in English. The Complainant requested that the language of the proceeding be English for several reasons, including the fact that requiring translation of the Complaint into Chinese would impose an unnecessary burden and cost on him and delay the proceeding. Despite the Center having sent an email regarding the language of the proceeding and a notification of the Complaint in both Chinese and English, the Respondent did comment on the language of the proceeding or indicate any interest in otherwise participating in this proceeding. 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. The Panel would have accepted a Response in Chinese, but none was filed. page 4 6.2. Substantive Issues Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy provides that a complainant must prove each of the following elements with respect to the disputed domain name: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has 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. The burden of proof of each element is borne by the Complainant. 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. See WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.7. The Complainant has shown registered rights in respect of the 東京音 TOKIONE トキオネ trademark for the purposes of the Policy. See WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.2.1. In view of that finding, it is unnecessary to consider the Complainant’s claim to hold unregistered rights in a TOKIONE mark. The disputed domain name contains a dominant feature of the 東京音 TOKIONE トキオネ mark (i.e., TOKIONE). Despite the omission of the other components of the mark, that dominant feature remains clearly recognizable within the disputed domain name. The only additional element in the disputed domain name is a generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) extension (“.com”) which, as a standard requirement of domain name registration, may be disregarded in the assessment of confusing similarity for the purposes of the Policy. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the registered mark for the purposes of the Policy. See WIPO Overview 3.1, sections 1.7 and 1.11.1. Therefore, 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 a 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. See WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.1. In the present case, the disputed domain name resolves to what appears to be a gaming website associated with different brands that do not resemble “Tokione”. The Complainant submits that the Respondent is not affiliated with the Complainant in any way and has never been authorized to use the TOKIONE mark. These circumstances do not indicate that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Nor is the Respondent making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. page 5 Moreover, the Registrar has verified that the Respondent’s name is “hou jian hong”, which does not resemble the disputed domain name. Nothing on the record indicates that the Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain name. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds 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 forward with any relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise. Based on the 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. The fourth of these is as follows: “(iv) by using the [disputed] domain name, [the respondent has] intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [the respondent’s] website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of [the respondent’s] website or location or of a product or service on [the respondent’s] web site or location.” In the present case, the disputed domain name was registered by the Respondent in 2022, years after the registration of the Complainant’s 東京音 TOKIONE トキオネ mark. “Tokione” is a distinctive, coined name and not a dictionary word. The Complainant used that name in the title of his website associated with the disputed domain name and in connection with musical productions for ten years prior to the Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name. The Complainant was also using “Tokione” in the title of his YouTube channel. The top result of a Baidu search for “Tokione” is an interview given by the Complainant in 2017 published in Chinese. In view of these circumstances, it is plausible that the Respondent knew of the Complainant at the time when the Respondent registered the disputed domain name. The Respondent provides no alternative explanation for his choice to register the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the Panel finds, on the balance of probabilities, that the Respondent knew, or should have known, of the Complainant at the time when he registered the disputed domain name. As regards use, the disputed domain name resolves to what appears to be a gaming website associated with different brands that do not resemble “Tokione”. That use is intentional and for commercial gain. In view of all the circumstances, the Panel finds that, by using the disputed domain name, the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to his website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent’s website or of a service on that website, within the terms of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. Based on the record, the Panel finds the third element of the Policy has not 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 disputed domain name <tokione.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /Matthew Kennedy/ Matthew Kennedy Sole Panelist Date: May 18, 2026

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