Through UDRP arbitration, we satisfied the three-pronged test under Policy 4(a) — confusing similarity, no legitimate rights and bad-faith registration — securing transfer of the disputed domain.
The client is the parent company of a global diesel engine manufacturer whose core trademark enjoys substantial recognition in China and worldwide. The client discovered a set of "core brand name + china" format domains registered and used by a third party. The domain content was arranged to free-ride on the client's parent company's presence in the China market, creating potential confusion and brand-dilution risk.
The disputed domains use the client's core mark as the principal distinctive element, with a geographic suffix "china" — constituting confusing similarity under Policy 4(a).
The respondent has no legitimate commercial activity tied to the mark, and no evidence supports any lawful basis for the registration.
Considering registration timing, use pattern, and the degree of association with the client's mark, the bad-faith element is satisfied.
Working from the three-pronged test under Policy 4(a) of the UDRP, we built the argument prong-by-prong: (1) Confusing similarity — the construction "core mark + 'china' geographic suffix" satisfies the similarity standard adopted by mainstream arbitral panels.
(2) No legitimate rights — the respondent has no registered commercial activity tied to the mark and no domain-use pattern reflecting any legitimate commercial purpose.
(3) Bad faith — combining the disputed domains' registration timing (post-dating the establishment of the client's mark recognition), use pattern, and close association with the client's mark, we showed subjective intent to free-ride on the client's goodwill.
Arbitration result: The panel adopted all our arguments and found all three elements satisfied, ordering transfer of the disputed domains to the client's parent company.
This case is a standard example of defensive enforcement by an international brand through UDRP domain arbitration. Compared with traditional litigation, UDRP arbitration offers lower cost, faster timeline and easier cross-border enforcement — making it a preferred tool for international brands addressing domain squatting.
For international enterprises, establishing a domain-monitoring mechanism aligned with core trademarks and acting promptly via UDRP upon discovery of squatting is a standard component of a brand-protection framework.