How to Review Chinese Entity and Brand Evidence in a UDRP Case

A practical method for connecting names, rights and business activity

Wei Bin | LONG AN LAW FIRM | September 2026

A UDRP complaint may contain a strong trademark, a familiar product and extensive publicity, yet still leave an essential question unanswered: which legal entity owns the right, which entity used the brand, and how does the evidence connect the two?

This issue is common in cross-border records involving Chinese businesses. A group may use a Chinese corporate name, an English trading name and a product name that appears in media reports. Trademark registrations may sit with an intellectual-property holding company, while an operating company runs the website and another affiliate signs commercial contracts. Each fact may be true. The difficulty is proving the relationship needed for the particular UDRP element.

The solution is not simply more translation. It is a structured entity analysis.

Start with the proposition that must be proved

Under paragraph 4(a) of the ICANN Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy, a complainant must prove all three elements: trademark rights and confusing similarity; the respondent’s lack of rights or legitimate interests; and registration and use in bad faith.

The same corporate document may have different relevance to each element. A trademark certificate may establish registered rights. It does not necessarily prove that the respondent knew of the complainant’s commercial use. A media report may show that a product was discussed publicly. It may not establish that the company named as complainant owns or operates that product. A group chart may explain affiliation. It may not establish a licence, assignment or use during the relevant period.

Before collecting evidence, write the proposition in one sentence. Examples include:

• Company A owned the registered mark on the filing date.
• Company B used the mark for the product before the domain was registered.
• Company A authorised Company B to use the mark during that period.
• The respondent’s website represented itself as connected with Company A or B.
• The respondent was likely aware of the complainant’s use and reputation when it registered the domain.

This exercise prevents a common failure: submitting a large body of material that proves commercial activity somewhere in the group but does not prove the relationship on which the complaint depends.

What CAC-UDRP-108500 illustrates

The decision in CAC-UDRP-108500, concerning hailuo-02.com, provides a useful example. Two complainants brought the case. The panel accepted registered HAILUO trademark rights and found the first two elements established. The complaint nevertheless failed on bad faith.

The important point was not that the brand lacked commercial significance. The record referred to HAILUO AI products and publicity, but the panel found that the submitted use evidence pointed to Minimax, and in some instances to a startup described as Hailuo AI, rather than establishing the complainants’ own use and reputation. In analysing the paragraph 4(b)(iv) allegation, the panel considered whether the respondent knew or should have known of the complainants’ use and goodwill. The evidentiary chain did not support that attribution.

This is a narrow procedural conclusion. It should not be rewritten as a finding that the product was unknown, that the group companies were unrelated, or that better evidence necessarily would have changed the outcome. It shows that commercial familiarity cannot substitute for a record that connects the relevant entity to the relevant activity.

Build an entity and name map

An effective entity map can fit on one page. It should contain at least six fields:

Chinese characters, Pinyin and English translations should be treated as different representations of a name, not automatically as separate entities. Conversely, similar English names should not be assumed to identify the same entity. Unified Social Credit Codes, registration numbers, registered addresses and dates can help reconcile the record.

The map should also identify unresolved differences. If a media report names a brand while the corporate website names an affiliate, record the difference and investigate it. Do not remove the inconsistency during translation.

Separate four types of relationship evidence

Corporate groups often submit materials that perform different functions. Keeping them separate makes the argument easier to test.

Ownership evidence identifies who holds a registered or unregistered right. Trademark-register extracts, assignment documents and chain-of-title records belong here.

Authority evidence explains why another entity may rely on or use the right. Licences, group authorisations, distribution agreements and declarations may be relevant, depending on the proposition and applicable UDRP practice.

Operational evidence shows which entity offered the product or service. Website terms, app-store listings, invoices, contracts, product releases and dated business records can help.

Public-recognition evidence shows how the brand or product appeared to the market. Media reports, traffic records, advertising and archived pages may be useful, but the named entity, publication date and source should remain visible.

A document should not silently move from one category to another. A press article about a product does not become proof of trademark ownership. A trademark certificate does not become proof of the respondent’s awareness. A translation does not create a licence.

Control the dates

Entity relationships change. A company may be incorporated after a product launch. A trademark may be assigned after the disputed domain was registered. A group may reorganise before the complaint is filed. The evidence map should therefore distinguish at least:

1. the domain registration or acquisition date;
2. the date of the asserted brand use;
3. the date of the corporate relationship or authorisation;
4. the date on which each evidentiary document was created;
5. the filing date of the complaint.

Later documents can explain earlier events, but they should be identified as later evidence. A current corporate webpage may not prove the structure that existed at the registration date. A declaration may provide evidence about an earlier relationship, but its basis and supporting records should be stated.

Translate functions, not just words

Cross-border teams often ask a translator to translate a folder without identifying what each document is meant to prove. That approach creates fluent text but leaves the legal chain implicit.

A bilingual evidence index should state:

• the original filename and page or paragraph;
• the entity named in the source;
• whether the English name is official, supplied by the source or translated for the proceeding;
• the proposition supported;
• the relevant date;
• any qualification, ambiguity or contradiction;
• who checked the translation and who checked the underlying fact.

Translation accuracy and legal sufficiency are different judgments. A perfect translation of an irrelevant document remains irrelevant. A useful index allows lead counsel to return to the source and see both the proposition and its limits.

Test the adverse reading

Before filing, ask a reviewer who did not prepare the complaint to read the entity map and answer five questions:

1. Can you identify the trademark owner without relying on the narrative?
2. Can you identify the entity that actually used the brand before the domain date?
3. Is the relationship between those entities proved for the relevant period?
4. Does each publicity item identify the same entity, or is the connection only assumed?
5. Which fact would a respondent most easily challenge as belonging to the wrong company?

This review should preserve contrary material. If different sources use different names, explain why. If the relationship remains uncertain, narrow the proposition instead of overstating the record.

What a clean handover looks like

For international counsel, the most useful Chinese-law support is often not a long background memorandum. It is a compact package containing:

• a one-page entity and name map;
• authoritative registration records with source locations;
• a dated relationship and brand-use chronology;
• a bilingual evidence index;
• a short list of unresolved points and contrary facts.

That package does not decide the UDRP case. It makes the factual record reviewable across languages and allows counsel to decide how the material fits the Policy, the provider’s supplemental rules and the circumstances of the dispute.

The cited decision is a public research source and was not presented as a matter handled by the author. This article provides general research commentary, not advice on any specific proceeding.