Complainant is Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. of New York, New York, United States of America, represented by Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp LLP, Los Angeles, California, United States of America.
Respondent is Jordan Smith of Palmyra, Pennsylvania, United States of America. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Disputed Domain Name”) is registered with eNom (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the ”Center”) on March 8, 2013, naming as Respondent “WhoisG, Inc.” On March 11, 2013, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Name. On March 12, 2013, 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 and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to Complainant on March 14, 2013, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. Complainant filed an amended Complaint on March 14, 2013, naming as Respondent “Jordan Smith.”
The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended 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(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on March 15, 2013. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was April 4, 2013. Respondent did not submit any formal response, although Respondent sent an e-mail to the Center on March 20, 2013, as detailed below. Accordingly, the Center notified the parties of the commencement of the panel appointment process on April 5, 2013.
The Center appointed Douglas M. Isenberg as the sole panelist in this matter on April 16, 2013. 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
Complainant states that it is “one of the world’s most famous and successful video game developers and publishers and has produced and continues to produce some of the most popular and best-selling video games of all time,” including the “video game series” known as “Grand Theft Auto,” the first version of which was released in 1998. Complainant further states that its Grand Theft Auto series of video games have won “numerous awards for their game design and storyline” and have sold 112 million units, including 20 million units of the most recent installment in the series, Grand Theft Auto IV.
Complainant states, and provides evidence to support, that it is the registrant of United States of America Reg. No. 3,439,237 for the word mark GTA (registered on June 3, 2008, first used in interstate commerce on September 30, 1999) for use in connection with, inter alia, “entertainment software, namely, game discs and downloadable game software for use with personal computers, video game consoles, hand held gaming devices.” (This registration is hereafter referred to as the “GTA Trademark.”) Complainant further states, and provides evidence to support, that its wholly owned subsidiary Rockstar Games is the registrant of a number of domain names containing the Grand Theft Auto Trademark, including .
Complainant states that Respondent uses the Disputed Domain Name in connection with “a website that uses Complainant’s copyrighted content and Complainant’s trademarks replete with a variety of screenshots and images from GTA:V, as well as Complainant’s distinctive GRAND THEFT AUTO and GTA marks and logos. The site purports to offer early ‘beta’ access to GTA: V to users who submit personal information, and download what may be a malicious piece of software.” (These statements are unsupported by any evidence provided by Complainant; however, a screenshot of a website using the Disputed Domain Name, captured by the Center on March 15, 2013, supports Complainant’s statements.)
The Disputed Domain Name was created on January 22, 2013. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
Complainant contends, in relevant part, as follows:
- The Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights. The inclusion of the number “5” and the words “beta” and “code” to the Disputed Domain Name, in addition to the GTA Trademark, are “slight distinctions [that] do not add any significant element and do not change the overall impression of the mark and are thus insufficient to escape a finding that the domain name is confusingly similar.”
- Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name because, inter alia, “Complainant has not authorized Respondent to utilize the GTA name”; “Respondent is using Complainant’s mark to generate revenue and attempting to collect personal information by falsely offering a ‘leaked’ beta version of Complainant’s GTA: V video game (which does not yet exist for public use) via Respondent’s website”; and “Respondent has not acquired any trademark usage in Complainant’s name and is not otherwise commonly known to be affiliated with GTA.”
- Respondent registered and is using the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith because “Respondent is deceptively diverting the public to Respondent’s website in order to benefit commercially by improperly capitalizing on the fame of GTA and by siphoning Complainant’s valuable goodwill”; “Respondent is clearly attempting to confuse Internet users for Respondent’s own commercial gain (including through phishing)”; Respondent has “attempt[ed] to foreclose Complainant from promoting its products on the Internet.” B. Respondent
Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions. However, on March 20, 2013, Respondent sent an e-mail to the Center stating, in full: “Hello I have received mail saying someone is trying to take ownership of my domain that I own. The domain is . I would like to just forfeit my ownership of the domain over to them as I don’t even use the domain and it is just sitting in my account anyway. What is the procedure for me doing so?” 6. Discussion and Findings
Pursuant to the Policy, Complainant is required to prove the presence of each of the following three elements to obtain the relief it has requested: (i) the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; (ii) 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. Policy, paragraph 4(a). A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Based upon the trademark registrations cited by Complainant it is apparent that Complainant has rights in and to the GTA Trademark.
As to whether the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the GTA Trademark, the relevant comparison to be made is with the second-level portion of the domain name only (i.e., “gta5betacode”), as it is well-established that the top-level domain name (i.e., “.com”) should be disregarded for this purpose. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition (“WIPO Overview 2.0”), paragraph 1.2 (“The applicable top-level suffix in the domain name (e.g., ‘.com’) would usually be disregarded under the confusing similarity test (as it is a technical requirement of registration), except in certain cases where the applicable top-level suffix may itself form part of the relevant trademark.”).
The Panel agrees with Complainant that the addition of the number “5” and the words “beta” and “code” to the Disputed Domain Name does nothing to avoid confusing similarity – especially because the most current version of Complainant’s Grand Theft Auto series of video games is “Grand Theft Auto IV” and because the words “beta” and “code” are well-known indications of an early, pre-release version of software. Thus, these additions actually increase the confusing similarity between the Disputed Domain Name and Complainant’s trademark. See, e.g., Gateway Inc. v. Domaincar,WIPO Case No. D2006-0604 (finding the domain name confusingly similar to the trademark GATEWAY because the domain name contained “the central element of the Complainant’s GATEWAY Marks, plus the descriptive word for the line of goods and services in which the Complainant conducts its business”); and Guccio Gucci S.p.A. v. Hainei Zhou,WIPO Case No. D2011-1017 (finding the domain name confusingly similar to the trademark GUCCI).
Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has proven the first element of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Complainant has argued that, inter alia, “Complainant has not authorized Respondent to utilize the [Grand Theft Auto] name”; “Respondent is using Complainant’s mark to generate revenue and attempting to collect personal information by falsely offering a ‘leaked’ beta version of Complainant’s GTA: V video game (which does not yet exist for public use) via Respondent’s website”; and “Respondent has not acquired any trademark usage in Complainant’s name and is not otherwise commonly known to be affiliated with GTA.”
Under the Policy, “a complainant is required to make out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests. Once such prima facie case is made, the burden of production shifts to the respondent to come forward with appropriate allegations or evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the respondent fails to come forward with such appropriate allegations or evidence, a complainant is generally deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the UDRP.” WIPO Overview 2.0, paragraph 2.1.
Accordingly, as a result of Complainant’s allegations and without any evidence from Respondent to the contrary,1 the Panel is satisfied that Complainant has proven the second element of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Whether a domain name is registered and used in bad faith for purposes of the Policy may be determined by evaluating four (non-exhaustive) factors set forth in the Policy: (i) circumstances indicating that the registrant has registered or the registrant has acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of the registrant’s documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or (ii) the registrant has registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that the registrant has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or (iii) the registrant has registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or (iv) by using the domain name, the registrant has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the registrant’s website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the registrant’s website or location or of a product or service on the registrant’s website or location. Policy, paragraph 4(b).
Here, Complainant has alleged specifically that bad faith exists pursuant to paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy given Complainant’s allegations that the Disputed Domain Name has been used “to offer early ‘beta’ access to GTA: V to users who submit personal information, and download what may be a malicious piece of software.” If true,2 the Panel has no hesitation in finding that such use constitutes bad faith. See, e.g., gamigo AG v. Wang Meng,WIPO Case No. D2011-1659 (finding bad faith where “[t]he Complainant alleges that the Respondent is using this Domain Name for software piracy”); and Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. v. Chris Rivers,WIPO Case No. D2013-0014 (finding bad faith where “Respondent offer[ed] a beta key to a product that is not lawfully available”).
Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has proven the third element of the Policy. 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 be transferred to Complainant.
Douglas M. Isenberg
Sole Panelist
Date: April 28, 2013
1 Although, as noted above, Complainant has provided no evidence to support its description of the website associated with the Disputed Domain Name, a screenshot of a website using the Disputed Domain Name, captured by the Center on March 15, 2013, supports Complainant’s statements. Further, the Panel is prepared to accept Complainant’s description as accurate given the absence of any contradiction from Respondent.
2 See footnote 1, supra.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy