EasyAntiCheat Oy v Markus Rohr

WIPO Case No. DAC2025-0002

ARBITRATION

AND

MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

EasyAntiCheat Oy v. Markus Rohr

Case No. DAC2025-0002

1. The Parties

The Complainant is EasyAntiCheat Oy, Finland, represented by Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein LLP, United

States of America (“United States”).

The Respondent is Markus Rohr, Germany.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <kamu.ac> is registered with CloudFlare, Inc. (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on August 11, 2025.
On August 12, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in
connection with the disputed domain name. On August 14, 2025, the Registrar transmitted by email to the
Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name
which differed from the named Respondent (Redacted for Privacy, Privacy service provided by Withheld for
Privacy ehf) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the
Complainant on August 19, 2025 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar
and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended

Complaint on August 20, 2025.

The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended Complaint, satisfied the formal
requirements of the .AC Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”), the Rules for .AC Domain
Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for .AC Domain Name

Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).

In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the
Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on August 22, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph
5, the due date for Response was September 11, 2025. The Respondent did not file a Response, and the
Center notified the Respondent’s default to the parties on September 15, 2025.

page 2

The Center appointed Steven A. Maier as the sole panelist in this matter on September 18, 2025. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7.

4. Factual Background

The Complainant is a company based in Helsinki, Finland. It is a provider of anti-cheat mechanisms for use in connection with multiplayer PC games. In 2018, it was acquired by Epic Games, Inc. In connection with its anti-cheat services, the Complainant also uses the mark KAMU.

The Complainant is the owner of trademark registrations for the mark KAMU, including for example the following:

- European Union trademark registration number 017077801 for the word mark KAMU, registered on April

17, 2018, in International Classes 9 and 42; and

- United States of America trademark registration number 6132936 for the word mark KAMU, registered on
August 25, 2020, in International Classes 9, 41, and 42.

The Complainant’s holding company Epic Games Inc. is the registrant of the domain name <kamu.gg>, which redirects to the Complainant’s official website at “

The disputed domain name was registered on March 13, 2025.

The Complainant exhibits evidence that the disputed domain name was used for an email address connected to take-down notices to YouTube purporting to come from the Complainant and contends that the disputed domain name previously redirected to its website at “

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is identical to its KAMU trademark, disregarding the country code Top-Level Domain (“ccTLD”) “.ac”.

The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. It states that it has no relationship with the Respondent and has never authorized it to use its KAMU trademark, that the Respondent has not commonly been known by the disputed domain name, and that the Respondent is making neither bona fide commercial use nor legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. The Complainant submits that, instead, the Respondent has used the disputed domain name to impersonate the Complainant.

The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. It argues that a domain name that is identical to its KAMU trademark carries a high risk of implied affiliation with that mark. It adds that the redirection of traffic to the Complainant’s own website at “ is conclusive of impersonation, and also that the Respondent has used the disputed domain name to send fake

take-down notices to YouTube purporting to come from the Complainant. It exhibits an email chain in the Complainant and its products (although the precise significance of these communications is not clear).

The Complainant requests the transfer of the disputed domain name.

page 3

B. Respondent

The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

In order to succeed in the Complaint, the Complainant is required to show that all three of the elements set out under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy are present. Those elements are that:

(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the

Complainant has rights;

(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and

(iii) the disputed domain name has been registered or is being used in bad faith.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Complainant has established that it is the owner of registered trademark rights in the mark KAMU. The disputed domain name is identical to that mark, ignoring the ccTLD “.ac”, which may be disregarded for the purposes of comparison under the Policy.

The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name is identical to a trademark in which the

Complainant has rights.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

In the view of the Panel, the Complainant’s submissions set out above give rise to a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. Moreover, the Respondent has failed to file a Response in this proceeding and has not submitted any explanation for its registration and use of the disputed domain name, or evidence of rights or legitimate interests on its part in the disputed domain name, whether in the circumstances contemplated by paragraph 4(c) of the Policy or otherwise.

The Panel also finds that the Respondent has used the disputed domain name to impersonate the
Complainant, which is antithetical to any claim of rights or legitimate interests.

The Panel therefore finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.

C. Registered or Used in Bad Faith

The Panel notes that the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s KAMU trademark, which was registered well before the disputed domain name.

The Complainant has demonstrated that the Respondent has used the disputed domain name for the purpose of emails from “[…]@kamu.ac” purporting to come from the Complainant. Clearly therefore, the disputed domain name has been registered and used to impersonate the Complainant, which is strong evidence of bad faith. Moreover, the alleged and unrebutted use of the disputed domain name to redirect to the Complainant’s website also supports a finding of bad faith.

The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

page 4

7. Decision

For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain name <kamu.ac> be transferred to the Complainant.

/Steven A. Maier/
Steven A. Maier
Sole Panelist
Date: October 2, 2025