When an overseas trademark is cybersquatted as a similar domain name and a counterfeit website is set up, on what basis can the brand owner get the domain name back?

After Chinese brands gain a firm foothold in overseas markets, they often encounter a situation that is not unfamiliar: their own registered trademark has been registered by someone else as a similar domain name containing a geographic or industry term, and the website also copies page elements from the brand's official website and claims to sell genuine products. At this point, what the brand owner really needs to decide is not "whether to be angry," but whether to initiate domain name dispute proceedings, on what basis to assert claims, and whether the evidence in hand is sufficient.

A decision issued by the Arbitration and Mediation Center of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) on 2026 year 10 month 21 day provides a verifiable sample. Case No. D2026-3680, sole panelist James Wang. The complainant is Imagewear Apparel, LLC of the United States, and the respondent is Xia HaiFeng of China. The disputed domain name redkapusa.com was registered with a registrar located in Guizhou (Guizhou Zhongyu Zhike Network Technology Co., Ltd.).

The complainant holds multiple trademarks containing RED KAP, including China No. 17949875 "RED KAP 1923" (registered on 2016 year 11 month 7 day), U.S. No. 1758476 (registered on 1993 year 3 month 16 day), and Canada TMA218468 (registered on 1977 year 1 month 21 day), and states that it has used the trademark on clothing and footwear since at least 1971; its official website domain name redkap.com was registered on 1995 year 10 month 28 day. The disputed domain name was registered on 2026 year 1 month 29 day, and at the time of the complaint resolved to an English-language website that copied some elements of the complainant's official website homepage and claimed to offer RED KAP brand products.

There are two procedural points worth noting. First, the naming of the respondent: the complaint was submitted on 2026 year 8 month 17 day, the registrar replied for verification on 8 month 19 day, and the disclosed registrant information was inconsistent with what was listed in the complaint (which was at the time in a "registrant not identified" status); the Center informed the complainant on 8 month 22 day and invited amendment, and the complainant submitted amended complaints twice, on 8 month 24 day and 8 month 31 day. The proceedings commenced on 9 month 2 day, the deadline for response was 9 month 22 day, the respondent did not respond, and the Center notified default on 9 month 25 day; the sole panelist was appointed on 10 month 7 day, and the decision was issued on 10 month 21 day.

Second, the language of proceedings. The registration agreement for the disputed domain name was in Chinese, and the complainant submitted in English and requested that the proceedings be conducted in English, while the respondent did not comment on this. The panelist addressed this issue separately before turning to the substantive findings, considering factors including: the Center had served the procedural notices in both Chinese and English, and the respondent had the opportunity to comment or object but did not use it; the respondent was absent; and the disputed website itself was in English. On this basis, it was found that proceeding in English would not constitute unfairness. This discretion depends on the circumstances of the individual case and should not be understood as meaning that an English-language complaint will necessarily be accepted.

The findings on the three elements are as follows.

First, confusing similarity. The disputed domain name fully incorporates the RED KAP trademark, and the added "usa" does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity; the .com top-level domain is a standard registration requirement and is disregarded in the similarity test. For brand owners, this means that adding a country name, regional term or descriptive word to a domain name usually does not change the conclusion of confusing similarity.

Second, rights or legitimate interests. Requiring a complainant to prove a "negative fact" is often difficult, so the complainant need only first establish prima facie evidence that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests, and the burden of proof then shifts to the respondent; where the respondent does not adduce contrary evidence, this element is found to be established. The factual basis in this case includes: the parties are unaffiliated, no license was granted, there is no evidence that the respondent is known by the domain name, and the domain name was used for a counterfeit site copying the official website—and a domain name used for such improper activity cannot create rights or legitimate interests for the respondent.

Third, bad-faith registration and bad-faith use. The panelist found bad faith at the time of registration based on three points: the long history of use of the RED KAP trademark; the trademark is also registered in China, where the respondent is located; and the domain name contains both the full trademark and "usa," which points to the complainant's country. At the level of use, the domain name resolved to a website that copied elements of the official website and claimed to sell genuine products, which was found to constitute bad faith under UDRP paragraph 4, subparagraph 4. By the time of the decision the domain name was no longer active, but the panelist applied the passive holding doctrine and found that cessation of resolution does not itself prevent a finding of bad faith.

One further point worth noting: the same complainant, against the same respondent, obtained another decision on the same day from the same panelist concerning another domain name, redkapuk.com (D2026-3706), with the same analytical path on the three elements. Read together, the two decisions do not present an isolated instance of "a domain name being cybersquatted," but rather systematic registration by the same entity around one brand, across suffixes and across regional terms.

The value of this decision for companies expanding overseas lies not in the outcome but in the evidentiary structure: trademark registration and use records in multiple jurisdictions, especially in the respondent's location, are key to supporting "cannot have been unaware"; fixing the official website pages, the domain name's resolution content and the registration information directly serves the arguments on confusion and bad faith.

For companies currently assessing whether to initiate proceedings, the next step may be to check several categories of materials: trademark registration certificates and evidence of use in the target market; screenshots of the timeline of the disputed domain name's registration and resolution; comparison records between the counterfeit website and the official website; and whether any licensing or distribution relationship exists between the parties. Where a domain name is temporarily inaccessible, it should not be assumed on that basis that the dispute has disappeared—the domain name in this case had ceased resolving before the decision, yet the panelist still made findings based on the existing evidence, which makes screenshots of the earlier resolution status all the more important.

It should be noted that domain name dispute proceedings resolve domain name ownership, and the remedies are transfer or cancellation; they are not equivalent to trademark infringement litigation, nor do they necessarily address damages caused by counterfeit sales. If a brand owner simultaneously faces sales confusion or harm to goodwill, other paths still need to be assessed separately. This case is a public decision and is used only as an analytical sample of procedure and evidentiary structure; it does not constitute a prediction of the outcome of any specific case.

Source: WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center case D2026-3680, Imagewear Apparel, LLC v. Xia HaiFeng, sole panelist James Wang, 2026, month 10, day 21; related case D2026-3706 (same day, same panelist).

Note: This article provides general intellectual property education and practical observations and does not constitute legal advice for any specific case.