Papa John’s International, Inc., which has operated in China since 2003 and owns long-standing Chinese trademarks for PAPA JOHN’S / PAPA JOHNS, discovered that its former local domain Papajohns.cn had been drop-caught in July 2025 by Zhang Wei, a Chinese bulk domain buyer. The company had previously owned and used papajohns.cn from 2013 to 2024 before letting it lapse in favor of other domains. Once Zhang Wei grabbed the name, it briefly resolved to a sales lander before going dark.
When Papa John’s sent a cease-and-desist, the Respondent replied that he buys “large quantities of expired and deleted domains every day” and claimed any infringement was unintentional—then immediately put a price on cooperation: USD 1,000 to transfer the name.
When Papa John’s pointed out the clear infringement and asked for a free transfer or deletion, he doubled down, insisting on the USD 1,000 figure and stating he would cease communication if the price was lower. The Panel treated that email exchange as a brazen attempt to monetize a well-known mark, not an innocent portfolio clean-up.
The decision also leans heavily on Zhang Wei’s broader pattern: he’s already lost prior disputes (including a Meta Platforms case) and his email is tied to more than 6,000 domains, among them obvious trademark targets like baiduauto.cn, googlewallet.cn, microsoftteams.com.cn, and samsungwallet.cn. Combined with the fame of the PAPA JOHNS brand in China and the fact that papajohns.cn had been the Complainant’s own domain for over a decade, the Panel had no trouble finding bad-faith registration and use, with the primary purpose being resale to the trademark owner for unjustified profit.
Final decision: Transfer of papajohns.cn to Papa John’s International, Inc.
Copyright © 2025 DomainGang.com · All Rights Reserved.ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER – Administrative Panel Decision
Papa John’s International, Inc. v. Zhang Wei
Case No. DCN2025-00441. The Parties
The Complainant is Papa John’s International, Inc., located in the United States of America (“United States”). The Complainant is represented by CSC Digital Brand Services Group AB, Sweden.
The Respondent is Zhang Wei, located in China.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is (the “Disputed Domain Name”). The registrar of the Disputed Domain Name is Xinjiang Nuoyun Online Network Technology Co., Ltd. (the “Registrar”).
3. Procedural History
The World Intellectual Property Organization (“WIPO”) Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) received the Complaint on October 2, 2025. On October 3, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Name. On October 4, 2025, the Registrar transmitted by email its verification response, confirming that the Respondent is the registrant of the Disputed Domain Name and providing the Respondent’s contact details.
The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the “Measures for the Resolution of Disputes over National Top-Level Domain Names” (the “Policy”), the “Rules for the Resolution of Disputes over National Top-Level Domain Names” (the “Rules”), and the “WIPO Supplemental Rules for the Resolution of Disputes over National Top-Level Domain Names” (the “WIPO Supplemental Rules”).
In accordance with Articles 5, 6, and 14–16 of the Rules and Article 4(4) of the WIPO Supplemental Rules, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint on October 13, 2025. The administrative proceeding commenced on October 13, 2025. In accordance with Articles 17 and 49 of the Rules, the due date for the Response was November 3, 2025. The Respondent did not submit any Response. On November 6, 2025, the Center notified the Respondent’s default.
On November 11, 2025, the Center appointed Rachel Tan as the sole panelist in this matter. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence as required by the Center to ensure compliance with Article 29 of the Rules.
4. Factual Background
The Complainant is a group operating an international chain of pizza restaurants. The Complainant’s Chinese trade name is “棒约翰” and it entered the Chinese market in 2003, opening in Shanghai. The Complainant states that it currently operates approximately 266 restaurants and sales outlets in more than 35 cities in China.
The Complainant owns multiple PAPA JOHN’S and PAPA JOHNS trademarks registered in numerous countries and regions worldwide, including China. These include Chinese Trademark No. 768054 for PAPA JOHN’S, registered on September 21, 1995 for services in Class 42, and Chinese Trademark No. 60446915 for PAPA JOHNS, registered on April 28, 2022 for goods in Class 30.
The Complainant also owns the domain names and , registered on July 29, 1995 and January 29, 2003 respectively. Both domain names resolve to the Complainant’s official websites.
The Respondent, Zhang Wei, located in China, registered the Disputed Domain Name on July 15, 2025. The Disputed Domain Name currently resolves to an inactive website. According to the evidence provided by the Complainant, the Disputed Domain Name previously resolved to a website offering the Disputed Domain Name for sale.
5. Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
The Complainant contends that the Disputed Domain Name wholly incorporates the Complainant’s PAPA JOHNS trademark (except for the space between the words in the mark, which cannot be reflected in a domain name), thereby creating a domain name identical to the Complainant’s PAPA JOHNS mark. Therefore, the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s PAPA JOHNS trademark.
The Complainant asserts that the Respondent is not commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name. There is no relationship of any kind between the Complainant and the Respondent, and the Complainant has never licensed or otherwise authorized the Respondent to use its PAPA JOHN’S or PAPA JOHNS trademarks in any form. The Respondent previously pointed the Disputed Domain Name to a website offering the Disputed Domain Name for sale. After receiving the Complainant’s cease-and-desist letter, the Respondent ceased resolving the Disputed Domain Name and replied that the Disputed Domain Name could be transferred to the Complainant for a price of USD 1,000.
In addition, between 2013 and 2024, the Disputed Domain Name had been registered and used by the Complainant, which later deleted the Disputed Domain Name after switching to a different domain name. The Disputed Domain Name was then registered by the Respondent. The Complainant submits that the Respondent’s above conduct does not constitute bona fide use of the Disputed Domain Name, or legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Disputed Domain Name.
The Complainant further contends that the Disputed Domain Name was registered long after the Complainant obtained registrations for the PAPA JOHN’S and PAPA JOHNS trademarks. Accordingly, the Respondent could not have registered the Disputed Domain Name without knowledge of the Complainant and its trademarks. After registering the Disputed Domain Name, the Respondent pointed it to a website offering the Disputed Domain Name for sale and responded to the Complainant that the Disputed Domain Name could be transferred for a price of USD 1,000.
The Complainant argues that the Respondent’s conduct demonstrates that the Disputed Domain Name was registered or acquired for the purpose of selling, renting or otherwise transferring the Disputed Domain Name to the Complainant, the owner of the relevant civil rights, or to a competitor of the Complainant, for unjustified profit.
Furthermore, the Complainant notes that the Respondent has been involved in other domain name dispute cases in which the respective panels ordered the transfer of the disputed domain names to the relevant complainants. In addition, besides the Disputed Domain Name, the Respondent has registered and holds other domain names incorporating third-party registered trademarks, which shows a pattern of bad faith registration and use of domain names.
B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
Prior to filing the Complaint, on August 4, 2025, the Complainant sent a cease-and-desist letter regarding the Disputed Domain Name to the Respondent. On August 6, 2025, the Respondent replied that it purchases large quantities of expired and deleted domain names every day and that it was possible it unintentionally offended a brand owner; the Respondent offered to transfer the Disputed Domain Name for USD 1,000. On the same day, the Complainant responded, informing the Respondent that the registration of the Disputed Domain Name constituted trademark infringement against the Complainant and requesting that the Respondent transfer the Disputed Domain Name to the Complainant or delete it. On August 11, 2025, the Respondent replied, insisting on selling the Disputed Domain Name for USD 1,000 and stating that it would cease communication if the price was lower than that amount.
6. Discussion and Findings
Under Article 8 of the Policy, the Complaint shall be upheld if the following conditions are satisfied:
(1) The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the name or mark in which the Complainant has civil rights;
(2) The registrant of the disputed domain name has no lawful rights or interests in the domain name or its main part;
(3) The registrant of the disputed domain name has registered or is using the domain name in bad faith.
The Complainant must prove that all three elements are present.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar to a Name or Mark in which the Complainant has Civil Rights
Based on the evidence submitted, the Complainant obtained registration of Chinese Trademark No. 768054 for PAPA JOHN’S on September 21, 1995 and registration of Chinese Trademark No. 60446915 for PAPA JOHNS on April 28, 2022. These trademarks remain valid. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant owns prior registered trademark rights in PAPA JOHN’S and PAPA JOHNS.
Prior decisions have established that, when assessing whether a complaint satisfies Article 8(1) of the Policy, a straightforward comparison should be made between the characters of the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s trademark to determine whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.
In this case, the Disputed Domain Name is composed of “papajohns” and the country code top-level domain “.cn”. As a necessary technical component of a domain name, “.cn” is purely functional. Therefore, it need not be taken into account when determining whether the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks.
The Panel finds that the distinctive portion of the Disputed Domain Name is “papajohns”, which wholly incorporates the word elements of the Complainant’s registered trademarks PAPA JOHN’S and PAPA JOHNS. The domain name system does not allow the right single quotation mark between the letters “N” and “S” in the Complainant’s PAPA JOHN’S trademark to be reflected in a domain name. On direct comparison, the main distinctive element “papajohns” in the Disputed Domain Name is identical to the Complainant’s registered PAPA JOHNS trademark and identical to the word portion of the Complainant’s PAPA JOHN’S registered trademark.
For the above reasons, the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s PAPA JOHNS and PAPA JOHN’S trademarks. The Complaint meets the requirement of Article 8(1) of the Policy.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant contends that there is no relationship of any kind between the Complainant and the Respondent and that the Complainant has never licensed or otherwise authorized the Respondent to use its registered trademarks. The Respondent is not known for any notoriety connected with the Disputed Domain Name. The Respondent previously pointed the Disputed Domain Name to a website offering the Disputed Domain Name for sale and stated that it was willing to transfer the Disputed Domain Name to the Complainant for a price of USD 1,000, which indicates an intent to sell the Disputed Domain Name for unjustified profit. In addition, the Respondent has been involved in other domain name dispute cases and has registered and holds other domain names incorporating third-party registered trademarks.
The Panel finds that the Complainant has made a prima facie showing that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. The burden of production therefore shifts to the Respondent to provide evidence of rights or legitimate interests. The Respondent has not filed any Response to rebut the Complainant’s case.
The Disputed Domain Name currently resolves to an inactive website. The Complainant’s evidence shows that the Disputed Domain Name previously resolved to a website offering the Disputed Domain Name for sale and that the Respondent offered to sell the Disputed Domain Name to the Complainant for USD 1,000. Such conduct does not constitute bona fide use of the Disputed Domain Name in connection with the offering of goods or services, nor does it amount to legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Disputed Domain Name. Moreover, there is no evidence that the Respondent has acquired any reputation by virtue of holding the Disputed Domain Name.
Additionally, the main portion of the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered PAPA JOHNS and PAPA JOHN’S trademarks and identical to the main portion of the Complainant’s prior domain name . The Disputed Domain Name was also registered and used by the Complainant for more than ten years. Therefore, the composition of the Disputed Domain Name presents a potential risk that the public may mistakenly believe that the Disputed Domain Name is associated with the Complainant.
For the above reasons, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. The Complaint satisfies the requirement of Article 8(2) of the Policy.
C. Bad Faith Registration or Use
The Complainant obtained registration for the PAPA JOHN’S trademark in China as early as September 1995, while the Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name on July 15, 2025, nearly thirty years later. The Complainant entered the Chinese market in 2003 and operates many restaurants in multiple cities in China. The Panel accepts that the Complainant and its PAPA JOHNS and PAPA JOHN’S registered trademarks have acquired a high degree of notoriety and distinctiveness globally, including in China.
According to the evidence submitted by the Complainant, searches for “papa johns” on the Baidu, Bing, and Google search engines show results that are almost exclusively associated with the Complainant. In light of the Complainant’s reputation and that of its PAPA JOHNS and PAPA JOHN’S marks worldwide, including in China, the Panel considers it difficult to accept that the Respondent, located in China, registered the Disputed Domain Name in ignorance of the Complainant. The Panel infers that the Respondent knew or should have known of the Complainant and its PAPA JOHNS and PAPA JOHN’S trademarks, yet nevertheless proceeded to register the Disputed Domain Name. The registration was therefore not coincidental but deliberate and in bad faith.
The Disputed Domain Name was previously pointed to a website offering the Disputed Domain Name for sale. The Complainant’s evidence further shows that the Respondent intended to sell the Disputed Domain Name to the Complainant at a price exceeding the Respondent’s out-of-pocket costs directly related to the registration of the Disputed Domain Name. The Panel agrees that the Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name with the primary purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring it to the Complainant, the owner of the relevant civil rights, or to a competitor of the Complainant, for unjustified profit. This falls within the circumstances of bad faith registration or use set out in Article 9(1) of the Policy. The fact that the Disputed Domain Name currently resolves to an inactive website does not preclude a finding of bad faith on the part of the Respondent.
The Complainant also notes that the Respondent has been involved in other domain name dispute cases in which the panels ordered the transfer of the disputed domain names to the respective complainants, such as Meta Platforms, Inc. and Meta Platforms Technologies, LLC v. Zhang Wei (zhang wei), WIPO Case No. DCN2023-0059. Moreover, the Respondent’s email address is associated with more than 6,000 domain names, some of which incorporate third-party registered trademarks, such as , , , and . The Panel finds that the Respondent has engaged in a pattern of registering others’ trademarks as domain names in order to prevent them from reflecting their marks in domain names, which falls within the circumstances of bad faith registration or use under Article 9(2) of the Policy.
For the above reasons, the Panel finds that the Respondent registered and used the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith. The Complaint satisfies the requirement of Article 8(3) of the Policy.
7. Decision
For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with Article 14 of the Policy and Article 40 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the Disputed Domain Name be transferred to the Complainant.
/ Rachel Tan /
Rachel Tan
Sole PanelistDate: November 25, 2025
