Globaltigerfund.com

The timeline behind globaltigerfund.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.

DECISION Tiger Global Management, LLC v. wang xian sheng Claim Number: FA2208002007233 PARTIES Complainant is Tiger Global Management, LLC (“Complainant”), represented by Scott Kareff of Schulte Roth & Zabel LLP, New York, USA. Respondent is wang xian sheng (“Respondent”), China. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <globaltigerfund.com>, registered with Hongkong Domain Name Information Management Co., Limited. PANEL The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding. Alan L. Limbury, as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on August 4, 2022. The Forum received payment on August 9, 2022. On August 16, 2022, Hongkong Domain Name Information Management Co., Limited confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <globaltigerfund.com> domain name is registered with Hongkong Domain Name Information Management Co., Limited and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Hongkong Domain Name Information Management Co., Limited has verified that Respondent is bound by the Hongkong Domain Name Information Management Co., Limited registration agreement, which is in Chinese, and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”). On August 18, 2022, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including an English and Chinese Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of September 7, 2022 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@globaltigerfund.com. Also on August 18, 2022, the English and Chinese Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the e-mail addresses served and the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to Respondent via post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts. Having received no response from Respondent, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default. On September 13, 2022, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Alan L. Limbury as Panelist. Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") "to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent" through submission of Electronic and Written Notices, as defined in Rule 1 and Rule 2. Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, the Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent. RELIEF SOUGHT Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. PRELIMINARY ISSUE: LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDING As noted, the Hongkong Domain Name Information Management Co., Limited registration agreement is in Chinese. Pursuant to Rule 11(a), the language of the proceeding in relation to the <globaltigerfund.com> domain name shall be Chinese unless otherwise determined by the Panel, having regard to the circumstances of the proceeding. Pursuant to UDRP Rule 11(a), the Panel finds that persuasive evidence has been adduced by Complainant to suggest the likely possibility that the Respondent is conversant and proficient in the English language. Further, the Panel determines that the language requirement has been satisfied through the English and Chinese language Written Notice of the Complaint and, absent a Response, determines that the remainder of the proceedings may be conducted in English. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant Complainant, Tiger Global Management, is a prominent SEC-registered investment adviser founded in 2001, focused on public and private companies in the global Internet, software, consumer, and financial technology industries. Complainant has a license to use the TIGER GLOBAL trademark granted by Tiger Management L.L.C., the owner of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) and international trademark registrations for the mark. Respondent’s <globaltigerfund.com> domain name is confusingly similar to the TIGER GLOBAL mark. Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the <globaltigerfund.com> domain name. Respondent is not licensed or authorized to use the TIGER GLOBAL mark and is not commonly known by the domain name. Additionally, Respondent does not use the domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate non-commercial or fair use. Instead, Respondent uses the domain name to operate a sports betting website for commercial gain, as Respondent was found to have done in Compagnie Générale des Etablissements Michelin v. 王先生 (Wang Xian Sheng), D2021-2583 (WIPO October 8, 2021). Respondent registered and uses the <globaltigerfund.com> domain name in bad faith. Respondent is attempting to pass itself off as Complainant, or as being sponsored by Complainant. In addition, Respondent registered the domain name with actual or constructive knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the TIGER GLOBAL mark. Finally, Respondent has provided false and incomplete WHOIS information. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant has established all the elements entitling it to relief. DISCUSSION Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable." Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred: (1) the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and (2) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and (3) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. In view of Respondent's failure to submit a response, the Panel shall decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant's undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(f), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and draw such inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules. The Panel is entitled to accept all reasonable allegations set forth in a complaint; however, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory or unsubstantiated arguments. See WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 at ¶ 4.3; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (“Because Complainant did not produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations [. . .] the Panel finds it appropriate to dismiss the Complaint”). Identical and/or Confusingly Similar Complainant has shown that it is licensed by Tiger Management LLC to use the TIGER GLOBAL mark, registered by Tiger Management LLC with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 3,919,597, registered February 15, 2011) and other trademark agencies worldwide. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has rights in that mark and will hereafter refer to it as Complainant’s mark. The Panel finds Respondent’s <globaltigerfund.com> domain name to be confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark because it contains the TIGER GLOBAL mark in its entirety, merely transposing the words “tiger” and “global” and adding the term “fund”. These differences are insufficient to distinguish the domain name from the mark. The inconsequential generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com” may be ignored. Complainant has established this element. Rights or Legitimate Interests Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy sets out three illustrative circumstances as examples which, if established by Respondent, shall demonstrate rights to or legitimate interests in the domain name for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, i.e. (i) before any notice to Respondent of the dispute, the use by Respondent of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or (ii) Respondent (as an individual, business or other organization) has been commonly known by the domain name, even if Respondent has acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or (iii) Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert customers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue. The <globaltigerfund.com> domain name was registered on March 28, 2022, many years after Complainant has shown that its mark had become very well-known. It resolves to a website displaying sports betting content in Chinese. These circumstances, together with Complainant’s assertions, are sufficient to constitute a prima facie showing of absence of rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name on the part of Respondent. The evidentiary burden therefore shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the <globaltigerfund.com> domain name. See JUUL Labs, Inc. v. Dryx Emerson / KMF Events LTD, FA1906001849706 (Forum July 17, 2019). Respondent has made no attempt to do so. The Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name. Complainant has established this element. Registration and Use in Bad Faith Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out four illustrative circumstances, which, though not exclusive, shall be evidence of the registration and use of the domain name in bad faith for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, including: (iv) by using the domain name, Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent’s website or location or of a product or service on its website or location. The circumstances set out above in relation to the second element satisfy the Panel that Respondent was fully aware of Complainant’s very well-known TIGER GLOBAL mark when Respondent registered the <globaltigerfund.com> domain name and that Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent’s website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark as to the source of Respondent’s website and of the goods or services promoted on that website. This demonstrates registration and use in bad faith to attract users for commercial gain under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). Complainant has established this element. DECISION Complainant having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED. Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <globaltigerfund.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Alan L. Limbury, Panelist Dated: September 14, 2022 Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page. Click Here to return to our Home Page

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