JUDGMENT
A. Overview
[1] This case involves, inter alia, the question of whether our High Court has jurisdiction to review and set aside a decision by an Administrative Panel that was formed by the Arbitration and Mediation Centre ("the Centre") of the World Intellectual Property Organization ("WIPO") on a complaint filed by the Defendant against the 1st Plaintiff under the Uniform Domain Name (Domain Name) Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) and the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy ("the Rules").
B. Salient Facts
[2] The Defendant, a Thai company, has been manufacturing and selling beverages under the "Red Bull" brand name for decades, and has trademarks registered in several countries, including 13 in Malaysia registered between 1988 and 2018.
[3] In 1995, the Defendant and three other parties entered into a joint venture to produce and sell Red Bull vitamin energy drinks in China, with the 2nd Plaintiff as the joint-venture company. Pursuant to the joint venture, license agreements were entered into for the 2nd Plaintiff to use the Red Bull trademarks. The license under those license agreements ran until 6 October 2016 and the business license of the 2nd Plaintiff expired on 29 September 2018. In that time, too, several trademarks using the Red Bull name or the Chinese equivalent were also registered in China (collectively, "the China Trademarks"). However, none of those license agreements permitted the Plaintiffs to register or use any domain names using the Red Bull name.