Arm Limited v. Yupeng Tang
25 July 2021
In this case, the panelist found that the domain name <arm.app> was identical to the trademark ARM, as the domain name <arm.app> simply reproduced the ARM trademark.
It was also found that the Respondent did not have a right or legitimate interest in the domain name because there was a prima facie finding of no RLI as the domain name was generic but was not used in connection with that generic meaning. The panelist was clearly of the disposition that it is not enough to show the domain name was a generic word; it also had to be shown that it was being used consistently with its generic meaning and that had not been shown, or at least not yet. Hence, the prima facie case that there was no RLI remained, and the complainant had won under this limb.
When it came to bad faith, there was insufficient evidence that the Respondent was aware of and targeted the Complainant or its trade mark at the time of registration of the domain name. The trade mark ARM was not particularly distinctive and may have meanings unconnected to the Complainant. So, the Respondent may not have targeted the Complainant. It also may not have had the intention to create confusion. The complainant had therefore not proved its case by evidence and the Respondent won.