Riot Games, Inc. v ivalin ivalin

WIPO Case No. D2023-3798

ARBITRATION

AND

MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Riot Games, Inc. v. ivalin ivalin

Case No. D2023-3798

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Riot Games, Inc., United States of America (“United States”), represented by Marq

Vision Inc., Republic of Korea.

The Respondent is ivalin ivalin, United Kingdom.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <riot-game.com> is registered with NameCheap, Inc. (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on September 12, 2023. On September 12, 2023, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On September 12, 2023, 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 (Unknown) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on September 18, 2023, 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 September 22, 2023.

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 Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on September 26, 2023. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was October 16, 2023. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on October 17, 2023.

page 2

The Center appointed Pablo A. Palazzi as the sole panelist in this matter on November 1, 2023. 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 was founded in 2006 and incorporated in the United States. The Complainant develops,
publishes, and support multi player-focused games. In 2009, the Complainant released the League of

Legends game. The League of Legends is one of the most-played PC games in the world.

The Complainant is the owner of the following trademarks in the United States:

Trademark	Registry No.	Classes	Registration date
Riot Games	4597374	16, 25, 28	September 2, 2014
Riot Games	4109440	9, 41	March 6, 2012
Riot Games (Logo)	6404044	41	June 29, 2021
Riot Games (Logo)	6782705	9	July 5, 2022

The Complainant further owns and operates its main website at the domain name <riotgames.com>.

The disputed domain name was registered on August 1, 2023. The disputed domain name is currently not in use.

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 its trademarks;

- the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name;

- the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy lists three elements, which a complainant must satisfy in order to succeed. The
Complainant must satisfy that:

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

(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 and is being used in bad faith.

page 3

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.

Based on the available record, the Panel finds the Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trademark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1.

The Panel finds the mark is recognizable within the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name contains the term “games” in singular and add “-” in the middle of the two words of the Complainant’s trademark, which does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7.

Based on the available record, 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.

While 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 often impossible 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. 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.

prima facie

Having reviewed the record, the Panel finds the Complainant has established a case that the 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.

Based on the available record, the Panel finds the second element of the Policy has 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 the Respondent registered a domain name which is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark and tradename with the only difference that the term “games” is in singular instead of plural and contains a “-”.

At the date of registration of the disputed domain name, the Respondent was apparently well aware of the
Complainant and its RIOT GAMES trademark. It is obvious to the Panel, that the Respondent has
deliberately chosen the disputed domain name to target and mislead Internet users. Consequently, the
Panel is convinced that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name in bad faith.

page 4

The disputed domain name is currently not in use. Panels have found that the non-use of a domain name
(including a blank or “coming soon” page) would not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of
passive holding. Having reviewed the record, the Panel finds the non-use of the disputed domain name
does not prevent a finding of bad faith in the circumstances of this proceeding. While panelists will look at
the totality of the circumstances in each case, factors that have been considered relevant in applying the
passive holding doctrine include: (i) the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the complainant’s mark, (ii)
the failure of the respondent to submit a response or to provide any evidence of actual or contemplated
good-faith use, (iii) the respondent’s concealing its identity or use of false contact details (noted to be in
breach of its registration agreement), and (iv) the implausibility of any good faith use to which the domain
name may be put. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.3. Having reviewed the record, the Panel notes the
distinctiveness and reputation of the Complainant’s trademark, and the Panel cannot conceive of any
plausibility of good faith use to which the disputed domain name may be put, and finds that in the
circumstances of this case the passive holding of the disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of

bad faith under the Policy.

Based on the available record, the Panel finds the third element of the Policy has been established.

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 <riot-game.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

/Pablo A. Palazzi/
Pablo A. Palazzi
Sole Panelist
Date: November 15, 2023