Fle-xlink.com, Flex-link.net

The timeline behind fle-xlink.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 FlexLink AB v. 上海澜兴制药机械有限公司 (shang hai lan xing zhi yao ji xie you xian gong si), 上海澜兴工业自动化有限公司 (shang hai lan xing gong ye zi dong hua you xian gong si) Case No. D2026-1137 1. The Parties The Complainant is FlexLink AB, Sweden, represented by Zacco Sweden AB, Sweden. The Respondents are 上海澜兴制药机械有限公司 (shang hai lan xing zhi yao ji xie you xian gong si), China, and 上海澜兴工业自动化有限公司 (shang hai lan xing gong ye zi dong hua you xian gong si), China. 2. The Domain Names and Registrar The disputed domain names <fle-xlink.com> and <flex-link.net> are registered with Alibaba Cloud Computing (Beijing) Co., 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 March 17, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On March 18, 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 Respondent (Shanghai Lanshen Pharmaceutical) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on March 18, 2026 with the registrant and contact information of nominally multiple underlying registrants revealed by the Registrar, requesting the Complainant to either file separate complaints 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 amendment to the Complaint in English on March 19, 2026. On March 18, 2026 the Center informed the Parties in Chinese and English that the language of the Registration Agreements for the disputed domain names is Chinese. On March 19, 2026, the Complainant requested English to be the language of the proceeding. The Respondents did not submit any comment on the Complainant’s submission. page 2 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 Respondents in Chinese and English of the Complaint, and the proceeding commenced on March 25, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was April 14, 2026. The Respondents did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondents’ default on April 19, 2026. The Center appointed Sebastian M.W. Hughes 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. 4. Factual Background A. Complainant The Complainant is a company founded in Sweden in 1980, carrying on business as a manufacturer of automated conveyor systems and a provider of related services under the trade mark FLEXLINK (the “Trade Mark”). The Complainant is the owner of several registrations in jurisdictions worldwide for the Trade Mark, including International registration No. 758763, with a registration date of April 9, 2001 (designation including China). The Complainant actively promotes its products and services under the Trade Mark via its official website at “www.flexlink.com”. B. Respondents The Respondents are reportedly companies located in Shanghai, China. C. The Disputed Domain Names The disputed domain names <fle-xlink.com> and <flex-link.net> were registered on February 24, 2019 and March 8, 2019, respectively. D. Use of the Disputed Domain Names The disputed domain names were previously resolved to similar Chinese and English language websites promoting the business of Shanghai Lanshen Pharmaceutical Machinery Co., Ltd. (上海澜兴制药机械有限公 司) and Shanghai Lanshen Industrial Automation Co., Ltd. (上海澜兴工业自动化有限公司), including automated conveyor systems directly competing with those offered by the Complainant under the Trade Mark (the “Websites”). As at the date of this Decision, the disputed domain names no longer resolved to an active website. 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 names. Notably, the Complainant contends that the Respondents have registered and used the disputed domain names in bad faith in connection with the Websites. B. Respondents The Respondents did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings 6.1 Preliminary Issues A. Language of the Proceeding The language of the Registration Agreements for the disputed domain names 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 for several reasons, including the facts that (1) the disputed domain names consist of the Complainant’s English Trade Mark in Latin text; (2) English is one of the languages available for users to select on the Websites; and (3) it would be costly and would delay the proceeding if the Complainant were to be required to translate the Complaint into Chinese. The Respondents did not make any specific submissions with respect to the language of the 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 of WIPO Panel Views on Select UDRP Questions (“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. B. 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 disputed domain name registrants pursuant to paragraph 10(e) of the Rules. The disputed 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. page 4 In addressing the Complainant’s request, the Panel will consider whether (i) the disputed 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 3.1, section 4.11.2. As regards common control, the Panel notes that the registrant information for both of the disputed domain names shares the same contact person and email address; and that the disputed domain names have been used in a similar manner in respect of highly similar Websites. 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 disputed domain name registrants (referred to below as “the Respondent”) in a single proceeding. 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 name. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.7. 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. The Panel finds the mark is recognizable within the disputed domain names (the only difference between the mark and the disputed domain names being the addition of a hyphen). Accordingly, the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, 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 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. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.1. 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 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 disputed domain names such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise. To the contrary, the disputed domain names have been used to promote the Respondent’s competing products via the Websites. The Panel finds the second element of the Policy has been established. page 5 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 finds that the Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain names in respect of the Websites constitutes bad faith under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. The fact that the disputed domain names no longer resolve to an active website does not prevent a finding of bad faith. The Panel finds that the Complainant has established the third element 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 names <fle-xlink.com> and <flex-link.net> be transferred to the Complainant. /Sebastian M.W. Hughes/ Sebastian M.W. Hughes Sole Panelist Date: May 8, 2026

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