A UDRP has been filed against the three letter .com domain name XMY.com. The UDRP was filed at the World Intellectual Property Organization, and it is WIPO Case D2016-0961. The complainant appears to be a Chinese entity and is listed as ç¦å»ºçœåŽä¸–ä¼Ÿä¸šä¿¡æ¯ç§‘æŠ€è‚¡ä»½.
XMY.com is currently registered at eName to a entity that appears to be based in China. The landing page for XMY.com is in Chinese, but I can see an English sentence on the page that says, “This domain name is for sale.” XMY.com has a creation date of January 19, 2000.
I did a few historical Whois searches at DomainTools, and it looks like this domain name may have changed hands a few times since 2012. From what I see, the registrants since that time all appear to be based in China.
I did a Google search for the complainant, as listed in the WIPO database, and I couldn’t find much information. This is likely due to my lack of knowledge of the Chinese language. As such, I am not sure what the complainant’s connection to XMY.com is or why it believes it has rights to the XMY.com domain name.
My guess is that the UDRP decision will be rendered in Chinese, and we will have to rely on Google Translate to get an idea of the facts of this case. I’ll be keeping my eye on this UDRP proceeding since it involves a high value 3 letter .com domain name.
Update: According to UDRPSearch.com, the complaint was denied, although the decision has not yet been published. I will update this if there is anything noteworthy in the decision discussion.
Does WIPO translate documents to English or choose Panelists that understand?
11. Language of Proceedings
(a) Unless otherwise agreed by the Parties, or specified otherwise in the Registration Agreement, the language of the administrative proceeding shall be the language of the Registration Agreement, subject to the authority of the Panel to determine otherwise, having regard to the circumstances of the administrative proceeding.
(b) The Panel may order that any documents submitted in languages other than the language of the administrative proceeding be accompanied by a translation in whole or in part into the language of the administrative proceeding.
[About the complainant]
1. The complainant 福建省华世伟业信息科技股份有限公司 (Fujian Province Huashi Weiye Information Technology Co., Ltd) is a game developer. Its corporate site appears to be KA6.com
2. It also filed a UDRP (Case Number CN1400772) on May 21, 2014 on XMY.com and the respondent was XU XIAOLI, who is different from the current registrant of XMY.com (Lv Chang Bing). The case was pending.
3. In 2013, a company called 福建省华世伟业信息科技有限公司 launched a game site (厦门游=Xiamen games) on XMY.com. The company name is almost the same as the current complainant except for two minor Chinese characters. Both companies start with a geo in their name (Fujian) and operate the same type of business (games). Based on these facts, I conclude that the complainant owned XMY.com in 2013 and they had to sue someone a year later for this domain name. (The news article in Chinese can be found here: http://news.ename.cn/yumingyingyong_20130617_45445_1.html)
[About the respondent]
The landing page of XMY.com says that the domain name is very versatile and suggests the following names and applications.
Science and Technology:
小米云 (Xiao Mi Yun). (My comment: Phone maker Xiaomi should be very interested in using it for cloud-based services.)
小蚂蚁 (small ant), 小绵羊 (lamb), 小美羊 (beautiful lamb), 小母羊 (young mother sheep), 熊猫眼 (panda eye), 小虾米 (small dried shrimp), 小鳗鱼 (small eel)
小名医 (young famous doctor), 新名医 (new but famous doctor)
Judging from the past ownership of the domain name by the complainant, this may not be a typical trademark infringement case. There must be more to the story.
I’ll be happy to help if you keep me posted about any change.
Thank you for sharing that valuable information!
Wayback Machine confirms that my conclusion in #3 is correct. The archived page shows 福建华世伟业信息科技股份有限公司 as the company name, which is exactly the same name as the complainant. So, we know now that the complainant owned XYM.com in 2013. The news article quoted the name erroneously.
Unfortunately, prior registration of the domain name does not give them de facto right to the domain name today if they simply failed to renew it. If they own a registered trademark on XMY maybe they have a case. Or, perhaps it was stolen. Guess we’ll find out.
Here’s a link to the decision, which was published in Chinese: http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?case=D2016-0961