Shanghai Joyvie Investment Trading Co., Ltd. filed a UDRP against the Chinese registrant of the domain UPPF.com. The WIPO Panel quickly found more than a simple cybersquatting dispute.
Joyvie leaned on its UPPF trademarks (including a 2025 U.S. registration and Chinese marks acquired by assignment), arguing the Respondent was once an affiliate, no longer authorized, and now using uppf.com to mislead customers and capture UPPF-branded business.
The Respondent replied that it created and first used the UPPF brand, that Joyvie’s Chinese marks came from its own portfolio, and that it held a 10-year overseas license. The disputed domain was registered in 2009, before Joyvie was incorporated in 2012, before the later trademark transfers, and before Joyvie’s own website, all while the domain has long been used for its film products.
Seeing a tangle of prior cooperation, cross-shareholdings, trademark assignments and lawyer’s letters, the WIPO panel held that this was a broader commercial and brand ownership dispute, not the kind of clear-cut bad-faith registration the UDRP is meant to address. Those issues, it said, belong in court, and it declined to walk through the three UDRP elements.
Final decision: Complaint was denied.
Copyright © 2025 DomainGang.com · All Rights Reserved.ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER – ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Shanghai Joyvie Investment Trading Co., Ltd. v. Zhejiang Shi He New Material Technology Co., Ltd. (zhe jiang shi he xin cai liao ke ji you xian gong si)
Case No. D2025-3621—
1. The Parties
The Complainant is Shanghai Joyvie Investment Trading Co., Ltd., located in China. The Complainant is represented by UPPF International Pte. Ltd., located in Singapore.
The Respondent is Zhejiang Shi He New Material Technology Co., Ltd. (zhe jiang shi he xin cai liao ke ji you xian gong si), located in China, represented internally.
—
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is uppf.com (the “Disputed Domain Name”).
The Registrar of the Disputed Domain Name is Alibaba Cloud Computing (Beijing) Co., Ltd. (the “Registrar”).
—
3. Procedural History
The WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) received the Complaint in English on September 6, 2025.
On September 8, 2025, the Center sent an email to the Registrar requesting confirmation of the registration details for the Disputed Domain Name. On September 9, 2025, the Registrar replied by email with its verification response. The registrant name and contact information for the Disputed Domain Name disclosed by the Registrar differed from the registrant (Seeho Film Co., Ltd.) and contact information identified in the original Complaint.
On September 16, 2025, the Center sent an email to the Complainant providing the registrant data disclosed by the Registrar and inviting the Complainant to submit an amended Complaint. The Center received three English-language amended Complaints from the Complainant on September 22, 24, and 25, 2025, respectively.
On September 16, 2025, the Center sent an email to the Parties in both Chinese and English regarding the language of the administrative proceeding. On September 17, 2025, the Complainant requested that English be the language of the proceeding. The Respondent did not comment on the language of the proceeding.
The Center verified that the Complaint and amended Complaints satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).
In accordance with Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint in both Chinese and English on September 26, 2025, and the administrative proceeding commenced on that date. In accordance with paragraph 5 of the Rules, the due date for the Response was October 16, 2025.
The Respondent submitted a Response in both Chinese and English on October 12, 2025. The Center also received email communications from the Respondent on September 9, 11, 18, and October 14, 15, and 16, 2025.
On October 21, 2025, the Center received unsolicited supplemental filings from the Complainant by email.
On November 3, 2025, the Center appointed Jacob Changjie Chen as the sole panelist in this matter. The Panel finds that it has been properly constituted. The Panel submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence as required by the Center to ensure compliance with paragraph 7 of the Rules.
On November 7, 2025, the Center received unsolicited supplemental filings from the Respondent.
—
4. Factual Background
The Complainant, Shanghai Joyvie Investment Trading Co., Ltd. (according to the evidence submitted by the Parties, its Chinese name is 上海中威智投商贸有限公司), is a company located in China, primarily engaged in the production and sale of paint protection films and automotive window films.
The Complainant owns United States Trademark Registration No. 7,735,071 for UPPF, registered on March 25, 2025.
The Respondent is Zhejiang Shi He New Material Technology Co., Ltd. (zhe jiang shi he xin cai liao ke ji you xian gong si), located in China.
The Disputed Domain Name uppf.com was registered on February 9, 2009. It resolves to a website that prominently displays the Complainant’s UPPF mark and offers services in a field similar to that of the Complainant.
—
5. Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
The Complainant contends that it owns U.S. Trademark Registration No. 7,735,071 for UPPF. According to the Complainant, the Respondent, Zhejiang Shi He New Material Technology Co., Ltd., was formerly an affiliated entity of the Complainant but is no longer affiliated and is no longer authorized to use the UPPF mark.
The Complainant asserts that the Respondent is using the Disputed Domain Name to mislead customers and divert them to the Respondent’s own business. Even after the Complainant sent a lawyer’s letter to the Respondent, the Respondent allegedly continued to divert business opportunities to its own brand. The Complainant argues that such conduct misleads the public and constitutes bad faith.
B. Respondent
The Respondent contends that it is the owner of the intellectual property rights in the UPPF series of brands, and that it is the earliest user of the Disputed Domain Name. The Respondent asserts that the UPPF series of brands was used with the Complainant’s authorization. According to the Respondent, the Complainant’s Chinese UPPF trademarks were obtained through assignment from the Respondent (or its affiliated companies).
The Respondent states that the Complainant agreed to grant the Respondent a 10-year license for use of the UPPF brand outside of China. Furthermore, the Disputed Domain Name was registered in 2009, which predates the Complainant’s date of incorporation (2012), the date when the Complainant obtained its trademarks through assignment (2023), and the date of the Complainant’s website (2025). On this basis, the Respondent claims that the Disputed Domain Name should belong to the Respondent.
The Respondent maintains that the website to which the Disputed Domain Name resolves was established based on the Respondent’s earlier trademarks and clearly refers to the Respondent, such that there is no misrepresentation. The Respondent claims that the website associated with the Disputed Domain Name has always been used for bona fide offering of goods and services, consistent online and offline, and has gained broad market recognition.
The Respondent further argues that the Complainant was fully aware that it had previously granted authorization to the Respondent, but deliberately failed to disclose this when filing the Complaint, allegedly with the intention of forcing the Respondent to abandon the Disputed Domain Name.
—
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Language of the Proceeding
The language of the Registration Agreement for the Disputed Domain Name is Chinese. Under paragraph 11(a) of the Rules, unless otherwise agreed by the Parties or specified in the Registration Agreement, the language of the administrative proceeding shall be the language of the Registration Agreement, subject to the authority of the Panel to determine otherwise having regard to the circumstances of the case.
In this case, the Complainant filed the Complaint in English and requested English to be the language of the proceeding. The Respondent filed a Response in both Chinese and English, and requested Chinese as the language of the proceeding.
The Panel considers that, under paragraph 11(a) of the Rules, the default language for this case should be Chinese. Accordingly, the Panel decides to issue this Decision in Chinese. At the same time, the Panel notes that the website to which the Disputed Domain Name resolves is in English, and that the Respondent has also communicated with the Center in both Chinese and English. The Panel therefore considers that the Respondent has a reasonable ability to understand English.
Therefore, the Panel accepts the English Complaint as filed and does not require the Complainant to submit a Chinese translation.
B. Admissibility of Unsolicited Supplemental Filings
The Panel notes that the Rules specifically address the filing of a Complaint by the complainant and a Response by the respondent, but do not expressly provide for unsolicited supplemental filings by either party. Paragraphs 10 and 12 of the Rules grant the Panel discretion to determine whether to accept unsolicited supplemental filings.
On October 21, 2025, the Complainant submitted unsolicited supplemental filings. In response, on November 7, 2025, the Respondent submitted unsolicited supplemental filings to comment on the Complainant’s additional materials.
Section 4.6 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”) provides that a party submitting, or seeking to submit, unsolicited supplemental filings should clearly explain the relevance of such material to the case and why it could not have been submitted with the Complaint or the Response.
The Panel considers that the Complainant’s supplemental filing constitutes an unsolicited submission that was not requested by the Panel. For the reasons discussed in Section 6.C of this Decision, the Panel finds that whether or not to accept the supplemental filings does not affect the Panel’s determination of this case. Accordingly, the Panel decides not to accept the Complainant’s unsolicited supplemental filings.
C. Scope of the Policy
Having reviewed the Complaint, the Response, and the evidence submitted by both Parties, the Panel finds that the Complainant and Respondent previously had close commercial cooperation, dealings, and affiliations. It is, however, clear that there is now a commercial dispute between them.
The Panel particularly notes that the Complainant’s Chinese UPPF trademarks were obtained by assignment from the Respondent (or its affiliated companies), and that there exist—or at least existed—complex cross-shareholding relationships between the Complainant, the Respondent, and related ultimate controlling persons. Recently, the Complainant also sent a lawyer’s letter to the Respondent demanding that the Respondent cease alleged infringing acts, cease use of the Disputed Domain Name, and stop selling products under the UPPF mark.
This indicates that there is a relatively complex commercial dispute between the Parties, involving a series of issues such as trademark rights and the ownership of the Disputed Domain Name, which clearly does not constitute a straightforward domain-name “cybersquatting” dispute of the type contemplated by the Policy.
In addition, the Panel notes that the Disputed Domain Name was registered on February 9, 2009. According to the Respondent’s evidence, the Complainant was incorporated on November 16, 2012, which is later than the date of registration of the Disputed Domain Name. The Complainant alleges that the Respondent registered and used the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith, but only states that the Respondent was formerly affiliated with the Complainant and is no longer affiliated, without explaining in detail whether the Respondent had bad faith at the time of registration of the Disputed Domain Name, nor providing supporting evidence on this point.
The Panel considers that the Policy is mainly designed to provide a fast and efficient administrative mechanism for resolving cybersquatting disputes involving domain names. Based on the facts and the available evidence in this case, the Panel understands that the Complainant wishes to resolve the ownership of the Disputed Domain Name through this administrative proceeding. However, the Panel notes that the complex commercial disputes arising from the Parties’ business cooperation – including the Parties’ dispute over the Disputed Domain Name – go beyond the scope of the Policy and are not the type of issues that an administrative panel is intended to resolve under the UDRP. Such disputes should instead be resolved by a competent court through judicial proceedings.
Therefore, the Panel will not proceed to assess the three elements under the Policy in relation to the Disputed Domain Name. The factual descriptions cited in this Decision do not prejudice the Parties’ positions, nor the findings of fact and evidence, in any potential future court proceedings.
—
7. Decision
For all of the foregoing reasons, the Complaint is denied.
/ Jacob (Changjie) Chen /
Jacob (Changjie) Chen
Sole PanelistDate: November 17, 2025
