claims it has not licensed or otherwise authorized the Respondent to use its TAO
or TAOBAO trademarks with the Disputed Domain Names. The Complainant
further claims there is no evidence to suggest that the Respondent has been
commonly known by the Disputed Domain Names because neither the
Respondent’s name- Alexey Gurov, nor his Organization’s name – Merchant
Global Enterprise Ltd, do not correspond to the Disputed Domain Names. The
Complainant contends that in the registration information for the Disputed
Domain Names <tao-imagine.com>; <tao-mama.com>; <tao-sp.org>; <taobaosp.org>, <тао-бао.com> and <таобао-форум.com> the Respondent identified as
his organization Taobao Ltd, an organization with an address in China. The
Complainant claims that the Respondent’s use of the Taobao Ltd attempts to
frustrate the Complainant’s efforts to recover the Disputed Domain Names and it
doesn’t afford the Respondent with any rights or legitimate interests in the
Domain Names. The Respondent asserts that passive holding of the Disputed
Domain Names <tao-0.com>, <tao-api.info>, <tao-mama.com>, <tao-sp.org>,
<taobao-sp.org>, <тао-бао.com> and <таобао-форум.com> (the “Inactive
Domains”) confers no rights or legitimate interests on the Respondent in the
abovementioned Disputed Domain Names. According to the Complainant, the
Respondent is using the <open-taobao.com> and <tao-imagine.com> domain
names to unfairly capitalize on the confusing similarity between the
Complainant’s TAOBAO and TAO trademarks and the Disputed Domain Names
by attracting and redirecting Internet users to its websites associated with the
Disputed Domain Names.
iii. The Complainant assets that the Disputed Domain Names have been registered
and are being used by the Respondent in bad faith because the Respondent has no
rights or legitimate interested in the Disputed Domain Names. The Complainant
claims that the Respondent has engaged in a pattern of bad faith because besides
the Disputed Domain Names the Respondent also registered <tao.email>,
<taobao.email>,
<taobao.website>,
<taobao.domains>,
<taobao.ink>,
<taobao.expert>, <taobao.ninja>, <taobao.partners>, <taobao.today>, <tao.land>
and <tao.zone> that incorporated the Complainant’s TAO or TAOBAO
trademarks. The Complainant alleges that the Respondent is also connected with
respondent in a previous domain name dispute involving <Taobao.com> domain
name because websites associated with the <Taobao.com> domain name and the
<open-taobao.com> Disputed Domain Name, and the registrant company’s
name, address and banking information were virtually identical. The
Complainant alleges that the Respondent knew about the Complainant’s
trademarks when he registered the Disputed Domain Names, because the
Complainant registered the TAO and TAOBAO trademarks eight years before
the Respondent registered the first of the Disputed Domain Names, the
Complainant’s TAO and TAOBAO trademarks are well-known and because
neither TAO, nor TAOBAO terms has meaning in English or Russian. The
Complainant asserts that the Respondent must have known about the
Complainant’s rights because his “www.open-taobao.com” website falsely
claims that the Respondent is an official partner of the Complainant’s Taobao
marketplace. Further, the Complainant alleges that the Respondent’s registration
and use of the Disputed Domain Names must involve mala fides where the
registration and use of it was and continues to be made in the full knowledge of
the Complainant's prior rights in the TAO and TAOBAO trademarks. The
Complainant claims that the Respondent’s use of “Taobao Ltd" is further
Page 5