The Complainant is Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc., United States of America (“United States”), represented by Kelley Drye & Warren, LLP, United States.
The Respondent is Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC, United States / Carolina Rodrigues, Fundacion Comercio Electronico, Panama. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on April 2, 2021. On April 6, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On April 6, 2021, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the Domain Name, which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on April 9, 2021, 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 April 12, 2021. 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 April 14, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was May 4, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on May 5, 2021. The Center appointed Mathias Lilleengen as the sole panelist in this matter on May 11, 2021. 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 publisher, developer and distributor of interactive entertainment software and accessories, including video and computer games and other online interactive entertainment goods and services. The Complainant’s goods and services are developed, marketed, and sold throughout the world. The Complainant owns trademark registrations in the trademark ROCKSTAR, registered in several countries, for example United States trademark registration number 5,639,907, registered on January 1, 2019. The Complainant has numerous other ROCKSTAR-formative marks in the United States and worldwide. The Complainant has used the trademarks for many years in connection with the promotion and sale of computer and video game programs and related goods and services. The Complainant owns several domain names that incorporate its ROCKSTAR trademark, for example According to the Registrar, the Domain Name was registered on February 18, 2021. The Complainant has provided evidence that the Domain Name has resolved to a website that links to third party retailers. At the time of the drafting the Decision, the Domain Name resolved to the same webpage. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant provides evidence of its trademark registrations. The Complainant argues that the Domain Name incorporates the entirety of the Complainant’s trademark, and the registration is a textbook example of typosquatting, as it is a common misspelling of the Complainant’s domain name The Complainant asserts that the Respondent is not authorized to use the Complainant’s trademark. The Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name, is not a licensee of the Complainant and the Domain Name is not the trade name or company name of the Respondent. The Respondent cannot establish rights in the Domain Name, as it has not made any use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. The Respondent´s use of the Complainant’s ROCKSTAR trademark seeks to create a false association with the Complainant. The Complainant further argues that the Respondent registered the Domain Name in bad faith. Given the fame and long-standing use of the Complainant’s ROCKSTAR trademarks since 1998, the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s rights at the time the Domain Name was registered. By registering the Complainant´s trademark in the Domain Name, the Respondent is attempting to attract visitors to the Respondent’s website by utilizing the Complainant’s ROCKSTAR Marks, only to thereafter redirect to websites of third parties unaffiliated with the Complainant. The Complainant believes that the Respondent receives payment for redirecting to third party sites. Such conduct evidences bad faith. The Complainant argues that the Respondent has a history of adverse UDRP decisions in typosquatting cases. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainant has established that it has rights in the trademark ROCKSTAR. The test for confusing similarity involves the comparison between the trademark and the Domain Name. The Domain Name incorporates the Complainant´s trademark ROCKSTAR, with the addition of the misspelled term “suport”. The addition does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the Domain Name and the Complainant’s trademark. For the purpose of assessing the confusing similarity test under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, the Panel may ignore the generic Top-Level Domains (“gTLD”); see WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.11. The Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Complainant has made unrebutted assertions that it has not granted any authorization to the Respondent to register the Domain Name containing the Complainant’s trademark or otherwise make use of the Complainant’s trademark. There is no evidence that the Respondent has registered the Domain Name as a trademark or acquired unregistered trademark rights. The Respondent cannot establish rights in the Domain Name, as it has not made use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering. The Respondent’s use of the Domain Name is not bona fide. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark ROCKSTAR, and identical to the Complainant’s domain name Based on the case file, the Panel finds that the Respondent has registered and used the Domain Name to attract Internet users for commercial gain, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark. The trademark ROCKSTAR is well known and the Respondent has not provided any evidence of good-faith use. Moreover, the Respondent’s use of a privacy service may in this case further point to bad faith. The Panel finds indication of bad faith in the Respondent’s use of the Domain Name to obtain click-through-revenue by redirecting visitors to third party websites. For the reasons set out above, the Panel concludes that the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith, within the meaning of 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 Domain Name Mathias Lilleengen
Sole Panelist
Date: May 19, 2021
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy