The Complainant is Supercell Oy of Helsinki, Finland, represented by Roschier Brands, Attorneys Ltd., Finland.
The Respondent is Domain Admin, Privacy Protection Service INC d/b/a PrivacyP of Nobby Beach, Queensland, Australia / Serenity LLC of Saxman, North Carolina, United States of America ("US"). 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainR (the "Registrar"). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on August 31, 2016. On August 31, 2016, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On September 1, 2016, 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 the Complainant on September 6, 2016 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 September 7, 2016.
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 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on September 9, 2016. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was September 29, 2016. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on September 30, 2016.
The Center appointed Tobias Zuberbühler as the sole panelist in this matter on October 12, 2016. 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 has created the mobile game "Clash of Clans" and is the owner of various CLASH OF CLANS word and figurative trademarks around the world, including European Union trademark No. 011158086 (priority date June 6, 2012) and US trademark No. 4327980 (registration date April 30, 2013). In December 2015, Clash of Clans was No. 1 among iOS games by revenue both in the US and worldwide.
The disputed domain name was registered on January 26, 2016. The Respondent's website at the disputed domain name displays the Complainant's logo and offers so-called "hacks" that allow players to generate free gems (an in-game currency) which otherwise need to be earned by in-game achievements or purchased with real-world money. 5. Parties' Contentions A. Complainant
In summary, the Complainant contends the following:
Due to massive worldwide publicity, the CLASH OF CLANS trademarks are well-known trademarks with a broader scope of trademark protection and a high level of reputation and goodwill.
The disputed domain name fully incorporates the trademark of the Complainant. The additional element "4gems" is descriptive and non-distinctive since it relates to "gems", the in-game currency used by players. The likelihood of confusion between the Complainant's trademark and the disputed domain name is therefore very clear.
According to the Complainant's information and belief, the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Complainant has not licensed its trademark to the Respondent or otherwise permitted the Respondent to register or use the disputed domain name. Furthermore, there is no relationship between the Complainant and the Respondent. Because proving a negative is impossible, the Complainant submits that, after it has made a prima facie case, the burden of proof to demonstrate rights or any legitimate interests shifts to the Respondent.
The only purpose of the Respondent in registering the disputed domain name has been to disrupt the business of the Complainant in relation to the Clash of Clans game. The Respondent's hack tool is enabling violations of the Complainant's Terms of Service and thereby causing bans, the termination of licenses and other negative consequences to the users of the Respondent's website. It is also evident that the use of the Respondent's tool causes commercial harm to the Complainant and results in a potential commercial gain to the Respondent since the gems (as in-game currency) are valuable and have to be purchased otherwise with actual money in the Clash of Clans game. The disputed domain name has therefore been registered and used in bad faith. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name consists of the Complainant's trademark CLASH OF CLANS and the addition "4gems", followed by the generic Top-Level Domain ("gTLD") ".com". According to the consensus view of UDRP panels, the addition of generic terms such as "4gems" (which is descriptive of the in-game currency of the Complainant's mobile game) to a trademark in a domain name is normally insufficient in itself to avoid a finding of confusing similarity (see WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition ("WIPO Overview 2.0"), paragraph 1.9).
The gTLD ".com" may further be disregarded when assessing identity or confusing similarity.
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark and that the Complainant has thus fulfilled paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
There are no indications before the Panel of any rights or legitimate interests of the Respondent in respect of the disputed domain name.
Based on the Complainant's credible contentions, and further to the Panel's findings below, the Panel finds that the Complainant, having made out a prima facie case which remains unrebutted by the Respondent, has fulfilled the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
As described above, the Respondent's website displays the Complainant's logo and offers so-called "hacks" that allow players to generate free "gems" (an in-game currency) which otherwise need to be earned by in-game achievements or purchased with real-world money, and allowing users to breach the Complainant's terms of service. In the Panel's view, the Respondent's conduct, in the circumstances of this case (including the Respondent's default), constitutes bad faith registration and use including in the sense of paragraph 4(b)(iii) of the Policy. The Respondent is disrupting the Complainant's business by lowering the Complainant's profit in selling gems to players of its Clash of Clans game.
Accordingly, the Complainant has also satisfied paragraph 4(a)(iii) 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 the Complainant.
Tobias Zuberbühler
Sole Panelist
Date: October 25, 2016
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy