Tencent Holdings Limited just lost its attempt to grab the domain name tencentgames.com in a UDRP and the domain holder didn’t even respond.

Bottom line the panel found the complainant trademark was effective in 2010 and the domain name registered in 2009:

 

Here are the relevant facts and findings by a one member panel:

“The Complainant is a Chinese investment holding company whose subsidiaries provide mass media, entertainment, Internet and mobile phone value-added services and operate online advertising services in the People’s Republic of China. Its diverse services include social networks, web portals, e-commerce, and multiplayer online games. The Complainant operates the well-known instant messenger Tencent QQ and runs one of the largest web portals in China, QQ.com. As of November 2010 the company is the third largest Internet company in the world behind Google and Amazon with market capitalization of US $38 billion.

“The Complainant owns trademark registrations for the mark TENCENT in Hong Kong and Taiwan, including:

– Hong Kong Trademark Registration No. 301038889 registered since January 24, 2008 for among others providing online game and online computer games and contests, and

– Taiwan Trademark Registration No. 00188316 registered since October 16, 2003 for communication services.

“The Respondent registered the disputed domain name on June 9, 2009 and at the time of submission of the Complaint the website under the disputed domain name featured an online game site, including flash games and shockwave games, as well as advertisement options for those interested.”

“In support of its allegation that the Respondent had knowledge of its mark at the time of registering the disputed domain name the Complainant submitted that the TENCENT mark is extremely well known in China and worldwide, as well as that it contains the dominant and distinctive element of the Complainant’s G TENCENT GAMES teng xun you xi mark. ”

“The Panel finds that this statement of the Complainant on its mark(s) worldwide well known status is not supported by evidence.”

“Further, the G TENCENT GAMES teng xun you xi marks to which the Complainant referred were all applied for on August 4, 2010, while the Respondent registered the disputed domain name earlier, on June 9, 2009 respectively.”

In support of its allegation that the Respondent had knowledge of its mark at the time of registering the disputed domain name the Complainant submitted that the TENCENT mark is extremely well known in China and worldwide, as well as that it contains the dominant and distinctive element of the Complainant’s G TENCENT GAMES teng xun you xi mark.

The Panel finds that this statement of the Complainant on its mark(s) worldwide well known status is not supported by evidence.

Further, the G TENCENT GAMES teng xun you xi marks to which the Complainant referred were all applied for on August 4, 2010, while the Respondent registered the disputed domain name earlier, on June 9, 2009 respectively.

The Complainant submitted that the Respondent owns the domain names <qqcards.com> and <336611.com> which incorporate the Complainant’s registered trademarks QQ and 3366 Open Platform.

Excerpts of Community Trademarks Nos 010877066 for the mark QQ and design and 010823102 for the mark 3366 Open Platform submitted by the Complainant show that the Complainant filed for these marks much later than the registration date of the disputed domain name, May 11 and April 20, 2012 respectively. The Respondent obtained the <qqcards.com> domain name on July 3, 2006, and <336611.com> domain name on December 20, 2007, again much earlier than the Complainant applied for trademark protection regarding these names.

The Complainant also alleges that the bad faith registration of the disputed domain name is supported by the fact that it owns the well know Tencent Boston games company in United States of America. The Panel found no evidence presented by the Complainant in support of the well-known status of Tencent Boston, Inc. at the time of registration of the disputed domain name, no evidence why the Respondent could have been aware of this subsidiary of the Complainant and its business.

“The Complainant also alleges that the bad faith registration of the disputed domain name is supported by the fact that it owns the well know Tencent Boston games company in United States of America.”

“The Panel found no evidence presented by the Complainant in support of the well-known status of Tencent Boston, Inc. at the time of registration of the disputed domain name, no evidence why the Respondent could have been aware of this subsidiary of the Complainant and its business.”

“Taking into account all these facts and circumstances this Panel found no evidence proving that at the time of registration the Respondent knew or should have known that the disputed domain name reflected the Complainant’s mark. The Complainant has not proved registration in bad faith, the third requirement of the UDRP has not been satisfied and the Complaint must therefore be rejected.”