The Complainant is Bytedance Ltd., United Kingdom, represented by CSC Digital Brand Services AB, Sweden.
The Respondent is Private Registrant, Digital Privacy Corporation, United States of America
(“United States”) / Dani Kaptzunim, Israel.
The disputed domain name <tiktokblaster.com> (the “Domain Name”) is registered with 101domain GRS Limited (the “Registrar”).
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 3, 2021. On March 3, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On March 4, 2021, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the Domain Name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on March 3, 2021, 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 on March 17, 2021.
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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on March 19, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was April 8, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on April 9, 2021.
The Center appointed Mathias Lilleengen as the sole panelist in this matter on April 20, 2021. 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.
The Complainant is an Internet technology company that owns a series of content platforms, including Toutiao, Douyin, and TikTok. TikTok and Douyin are the Complainant’s platforms or applications for its videosharing social networking services. In September 2016, Douyin was launched in China and became a popular short-video sharing platform. TikTok was launched outside China in May 2017 and became the most downloaded application in the United States in October 2018. TikTok allows users to create short videos. The videos incorporate music samples, filters, quick cuts, stickers and other creative add-ons. TikTok is available in more than 150 different markets, in 75 languages. TikTok has global offices including Los Angeles, New York, London, Paris, Berlin, Dubai, Mumbai, Singapore, Jakarta, Seoul, and Tokyo. More than 500 million users have downloaded the TikTok app.
The Complainant together with its subsidiary, TikTok Information Technologies UK Limited, is the owner of trademark registrations for TIK TOK across various jurisdictions, for example, European Union Trade Mark registration no. 017913208, registered on October 20, 2018.
The Complainant also has a large Internet presence through its primary website <tiktok.com>.
According to the Registrar, the Domain Name was registered on May 22, 2019. At the time of the Complaint, and at the time of drafting the decision, the Domain Name resolved to a webpage that uses parts of the Complainant’s TIK TOK trademark and logo.
The Complainant provides evidence of trademark registrations, and argues that the Domain Name captures in its entirety the Complainant’s TIK TOK trademark. The mere addition of the generic term “blaster” does not negate the confusing similarity between the Domain Name and the Complainant’s trademark. Additionally, the Respondent’s use of the Domain Name contributes to the confusion.
The Complainant asserts that the Respondent is not authorized to use the Complainant’s trademark. The Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name. The Respondent has not made any use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. The Respondent, by naming its website as “TikTokBlaster” and using the Complainant’s musical note logo as part of its logo, uses the Domain Name, the Complainant argues, to take advantage of the fame and goodwill that Complainant has built in its brand and logo. Furthermore, on its website, the Respondent offers for sale likes and followers to TikTok users, contrary to TikTok’s Terms of Service.
The Complainant believes the Respondent knew of the Complainant’s activity and prior trademark rights when the Respondent registered the Domain Name. The Complainant argues also that it is not possible to conceive of a plausible situation in which the Respondent would have been unaware of the Complainant at the time the Domain Name was registered. The Respondent’s use of the Domain Name constitutes a disruption of Complainant’s business that qualifies as bad faith under Policy, in particular as the Respondent offers for sale likes and followers to TikTok users, contrary to TikTok’s Terms of Service. Finally, the Respondent’s use of a privacy service is a further indication of bad faith.
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
The Complainant has established that it has rights in the trademark TIK TOK. The test for confusing similarity involves the comparison between the trademark and the Domain Name. The Domain Name incorporates the Complainant’s trademark, with the addition of “blaster”. The addition does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the Domain Name and the Complainant’s trademark.
For the purpose of assessing confusing similarity under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, the Panel may ignore the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com”; see WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.11.
The Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
The Complainant has made unrebutted assertions that it has not granted any authorization to the Respondent to register the Domain Name containing the Complainant’s trademark or otherwise make use of the Complainant’s mark. There is no evidence that the Respondent has registered the Domain Name as a trademark or acquired unregistered trademark rights. The Respondent has not presented any evidence that it has made use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering. The Respondent’s unauthorized use of the Complainant’s name and logo takes advantage of the Complainant’s fame and goodwill and it is not bona fide, evidenced by the Respondent’s sale of likes and followers to TikTok users, which is contrary to TikTok’s Terms of Service. This is not changed by the Respondent’s use of a disclaimer. The disclaimer is in any circumstance hidden at the end of the Respondent’s terms of service and therefore not prominently disclosing the registrant’s relationship with the trademark holder as is the requirement for fair use by resellers and distributors, see WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.8.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.
The Panel agrees with the Complainant that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant when the Respondent registered the Domain Name. It is evident from the Complainant’s fame and the Respondent’s website.
Based on the case file, in particular the fact that the Respondent has made unauthorized use of parts of the Complainant’s logo and not replied to the Complainant’s contentions, the Panel finds it likely that the Respondent has registered and used the Domain Name to attract Internet users for commercial gain, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark. The Panel also notes that the Respondent offers for sale likes and followers to TikTok users, which is contrary to TikTok’s Terms of Service. The Respondent is alluring a relationship to the Complainant and not prominently disclosing the real lack of any relationship to the Complainant.
Finally, the Respondent’s use of a privacy service is under the circumstances of this case further evidence of bad faith.
For the reasons set out above, the Panel concludes that the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith, within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.
For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the Domain Name <tiktokblaster.com> be transferred to the Complainant.
Mathias Lilleengen
Sole Panelist
Date: April 26, 2021