Alibaba Cloud Computing Registration Agreement

Paragraph 3, point (c) of the internal regulation stipulates that a complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that the domain names are registered by the same domain name owner. However, the group does not consider that paragraph 3, point (c) should allow an individual person or agency to recruit a complainant on the unnecessary delays, costs and costs associated with opening multiple proceedings against registrants of technically different domain names, particularly when each registration raises many of the same issues. In response to the complainant`s request, the court will consider whether (i) the disputed domain names or websites concerned are subject to joint control; and (ii) that consolidation be fair and equitable for all contracting parties. See WIPO`s overview of WIPO panel views on UDRP issues, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), Section 4.11.2. (f) Alibaba Cloud is not responsible for or responsible for inaccuracies or errors in the registration, renewal, withdrawal or transfer of domain names, or in any way errors, omissions or other actions of third parties or registers arising from an application to register, renew, register or transfer a domain. With respect to registration, the respondent registered the disputed domain name on January 24, 2016, several years after the complainant`s JUMIA trademark was registered, and more than three years after the complainant began using the trademark as part of his e-commerce platform. The domain name at issue contains the entire JUMIA mark as an original element and associates it with the English word “pay,” which can be concluded that the respondent was aware of the nature of the services provided by the applicant. On the basis of all the reasons set out in Section 6.2B, the proceeding considers that the most likely explanation for the respondent`s decision to register the disputed domain name was that he was aware of the applicant`s JUMIA mark and that he registered it as part of the domain name at issue in poor governance. Accordingly, the proceedings find that the applicant advanced a prima facie case where the respondent obtained his trademark registration in order to support his right to the name of the disputed domain.