Flappy Bird Holding Ltd. v Phu Cuong Ha

WIPO Case No. DCO2025-0005

ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Flappy Bird Holding Ltd. v. Phu Cuong Ha

Case No. DCO2025-0005

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Flappy Bird Holding Ltd., Cyprus, represented by Kushnirsky Gerber PLLC, United

States of America (“United States”).

The Respondent is Phu Cuong Ha, Viet Nam.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <flappy-bird.co> is registered with Name.com, Inc. (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on January 23, 2025.
On January 23, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in
connection with the disputed domain name. On January 24, 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, Domain Protection Services, Inc”)
and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on
January 28, 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 amendment to the

Complaint on January 28, 2025.

The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to the Complaint 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 the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the notified the Respondent’s default on February 24, 2025.
Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on January 30, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph
5, the due date for Response was February 19, 2025. On January 31, 2025, the Complainant sent a

page 2

The Center appointed Luca Barbero as the sole panelist in this matter on March 3, 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 Cyprus-based limited liability company that operates the website “ currently promoting the relaunch of the Flappy Bird video game, which was one of the most downloaded mobile game applications in 2013 and was withdrawn from the app stores in 2014.

The relaunch of the Flappy Bird game is also promoted via the X (formerly Twitter) account “flappy_bird” and the Telegram account “Flappy Bird”.

The Complainant is the owner of the United States trademark registration No. 5430683 for FLAPPY BIRD

(word mark), filed on February 10, 2014, and registered on March 27, 2018, in International Class 9.

The Complainant is also the owner of the domain name <flappybird.org> registered on April 13, 2015.

The disputed domain name <flappy-bird.co> was registered on September 15, 2022, and has been redirecting to a website, initially displayed at “ and, subsequently, at <flappygame.org>, which offers a version of the Flappy Bird game not authorized by the Complainant and also promotes other online games.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the disputed domain name.

Notably, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark mere addition of a hyphen between the words “flappy” and “bird”.

The Complainant submits that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name or the FLAPPY BIRD mark and is unjustly benefiting from the Complainant’s goodwill in its domain name and registered trademark, by using the disputed domain name to attract users seeking the Complainant's website to its own website for commercial gain, where it offers a counterfeit version of the Complainant’s FLAPPY BIRD game to play in order to boost ad revenue and create a false association between the Complainant and the Respondent.

With reference to the circumstances evidencing bad faith, the Complainant indicates that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name in September 2022, after the Complainant had already spent over 8 years building up goodwill in its mark and developing regular visits to its website “

The Complainant further states that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name for the sole purpose of benefiting commercially by improperly diverting consumer traffic from the Complainant’s website and the confusion is further exacerbated by the Respondent offering a counterfeit reproduction of the Complainant’s FLAPPY BIRD game.

B. Respondent

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

page 3

C. Complainant’s Supplemental Filing

On January 31, 2025, the Complainant sent a communication to the Center stating that, after the notification of the Complaint, the Respondent registered the additional domain name <flappygame.org> and redirected the disputed domain name to a website published at the domain name <flappygame.org>.

The Complainant submitted that such behavior further demonstrates the Respondent’s bad faith.

6. Discussion and Findings

According to paragraph 15(a) of the Rules: “A Panel shall decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable.” Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy directs that the Complainant must prove each of the

following:

(i) that the disputed domain name registered by the Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;

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

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

6.1. Preliminary procedural issue: Complainant’s Supplemental Filing

Before entering into the merits of the case, the Panel addresses the issue of the supplemental filing submitted by the Complainant to the Center.

No provision concerning supplemental filings are made in the Rules or Supplemental Rules, except at the request of the panel according to paragraph 12 of the Rules, which states the panel, in its sole discretion, may request any further statements or documents from the parties it may deem necessary to decide the

case.

According to paragraph 10 of the Rules, the Panel has the authority to determine the admissibility, relevance, materiality and weight of the evidence, and also to conduct the proceedings with due expedition, ensuring that the Parties are treated with equality and that each Party is given a fair opportunity to present its case.

As stated in the WIPO Overview 3.0, section 4.6, unsolicited supplemental filings are generally discouraged – unless specifically requested by the panel – and the party submitting an unsolicited supplemental filing should clearly show its relevance to the case and why it was unable to provide the information contained therein in its complaint or response.

Accordingly, UDRP panels generally accept supplemental filings only when they provide material new
evidence or a fair opportunity to respond to arguments that could not reasonably have been anticipated.
See, along these lines, Welcomemat Services, Inc. v. Michael Plummer Jr., MLP Enterprises Inc., WIPO
Case No. D2017-0481.

The Panel notes that, in its unsolicited Supplemental Filing dated January 31, 2025, the Complainant claims that the Respondent, one day after the notification of the Complaint by the Center, dated January 30, 2025, registered an additional domain name infringing its trademark rights, i.e. <flappygame.org>, and redirected the disputed domain name to the website displayed at “ This circumstance further

demonstrates the Respondent’s bad faith according to the Complainant. The Respondent did not submit any Response to the Complaint nor any comment to the Complainant’s Supplemental Filing – copy of which was delivered to the Respondent – and the Center notified the Respondent’s Default on February 24, 2025.

page 4

Noting that the Complainant could not reasonably foresee, at the time of the filing of the Complaint, that the Respondent had sufficient time to provide its comments to the Complainant’s Supplemental Filing but did not deem appropriate to do so. Therefore, the Panel does not find it necessary to issue an administrative panel order to request the Respondent to provide comments to the Complainant’s Supplemental Filing.
Respondent would have subsequently redirected the disputed domain name to the website
“ as the domain name <flappygame.org> was not even registered at that time, the

As to the Complainant’s Supplemental Filing, the Panel notes that, since the domain name <flappygame.org> is registered in the name of a WhoIs privacy service via a registrar different from the one of the disputed domain name, the Panel is not in a position to determine whether this domain name might have been registered by the same registrant as the disputed domain name. However, the Panel will consider the change of redirection of the disputed domain name when addressing the merits of the case.

The Panel also notes that the Complainant has filed a separate Complaint concerning the domain name

<flappygame.org>, the registration of which will thus be addressed in that ongoing case.

In view of the above, the Panel will now proceed to a decision on the merits of the present case.

6.2. Substantive issues

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. The standing (or threshold) test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition, (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.7.

The Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trademark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy. registration for FLAPPY BIRD.

The Panel finds the mark is recognizable within the disputed domain name even despite the addition of a hyphen between the words “flappy” and “bird”. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy.

In addition, the country-code Top-Level Domain “.co” can be disregarded under the first element confusing similarity test, being a standard registration requirement. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.11.1.

Therefore, the Panel finds the first element of the Policy has been established.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances in which the Respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name.

Although the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, panels have recognized that proving a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the difficult task of “proving a negative”, requiring information that is often primarily within the knowledge or control of the respondent. As such, where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name (although the burden of proof always remains on the complainant). If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.1.

page 5

Having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent has not rebutted the Complainant’s prima facie showing and has not come forward with any relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise.

According to the evidence on record, there is no relationship between the Complainant and the Respondent, and the Complainant has not authorized the Respondent to register or use its trademark or the disputed domain name. Moreover, there is no element from which the Panel could infer the Respondent’s rights over the disputed domain name, or that the Respondent might be commonly known by the disputed domain name.

Furthermore, there is no evidence showing that the Respondent made use or preparations to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial use without intention to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the FLAPPY BIRD trademark. Indeed, the Respondent has used the disputed domain name to divert users to websites offering unauthorized versions of the Flappy Bird game and promoting also unrelated games, thereby creating a likelihood of confusion and association with the Complainant and its trademark.

Therefore, the Panel finds the second element of the Policy has also been established.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Panel notes that, for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, paragraph 4(b) of the Policy establishes circumstances, in particular, but without limitation, that, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith.

In the present case, the Panel notes that, in light of the prior use of the FLAPPY BIRD trademark in the FLAPPY BIRD mark in mind at the time of registration of the disputed domain name.
connection with the popular Flappy Bird game, the virtual identity of the disputed domain name with the
FLAPPY BIRD mark, and the redirection of the disputed domain name to websites featuring the FLAPPY

The Panel also finds that the use of the disputed domain name to redirect users to websites – initially displayed at the disputed domain name, and, subsequently, at the domain name <flappygame.org> – offering an unauthorized version of the Flappy Bird game whilst promoting also third-party video games,

suggests that the Respondent intentionally attempted to attract Internet users to its website or other online
location for commercial gain, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the FLAPPY BIRD mark as to the

source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the websites according to paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.

Therefore, the Panel finds that the Complainant has also established the third element of the Policy as well.

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 <flappy-bird.co> be transferred to the Complainant.

/Luca Barbero/
Luca Barbero
Sole Panelist
Date: March 17, 2025