The Complainants are Gravity Co. Ltd., Republic of Korea, and Gravity Interactive, Inc., United States of America (“United States”), represented by LUCEM, PC, United States.
The Respondent is Whois Privacy (enumDNS dba), Luxembourg / Cuong Ngo, Viet Nam.
2. The Domain Name and RegistrarThe disputed domain name
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on August 23, 2021. On August 24, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On August 25, 2021, 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 August 31, 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 amendment to the Complaint on September 2, 2021.
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 7, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was September 27, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on September 28, 2021.
The Center appointed Adam Taylor as the sole panelist in this matter on October 4, 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 BackgroundSince 2002, the Complainant has supplied a multiplayer online and mobile computer game called “Ragnarok Online”, with many players worldwide.
In July 2020 the Complainant launched a version of the game called “Ragnarök Origin”.
The Complainant owns Republic of Korea figurative trade mark no. 1726522 for a logo plus the words RAGNARÖK ORIGIN, filed on May 8, 2020, registered on May 11, 2021, in class 9.
The Respondent registered the disputed domain name on February 26, 2021.
As of August 17, 2021, the disputed domain name resolved to a website with the title “Ragnarok Origin Mobile | Legend”, and which included a prominent screenshot, apparently from the Complainant’s game, along with download buttons plus the Complainant’s YouTube video trailer for Ragnarök Origin.
5. Parties’ Contentions A. ComplainantThe following is a summary of the Complainant’s contentions.
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade mark as it incorporates “r” and “o”, the initials of the Complainant’s trade mark RAGNARÖK ORIGIN, along with “m”, which is shorthand for “mobile”. Furthermore, the Respondent’s website appears to include unauthorised pirated copies of the Complainant’s game.
The Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.
The Complainant did not authorise the Respondent to use its marks in any manner or to register the disputed domain name.
There is no evidence that the Respondent has acquired any trade mark rights in connection with the disputed domain name and the Respondent has not been commonly known by the disputed domain name.
The Respondent has not used the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services.
The Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name.
The Respondent is using the disputed domain name to distribute unauthorised pirated copies of the Complainant’s game in order to illegally divert Internet users to its website for profit. The Respondent cannot legitimately assert that it was unaware of the Complainant or its trade marks.
The disputed domain name post-dates the Complainant’s use of its trade marks including for RAGNARÖK ORIGIN and is being used to infringe those trade marks.
B. RespondentThe Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and FindingsUnder the Policy, the Complainant is required to prove on the balance of probabilities that:
- the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark in which the Complainant has rights;
- the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and
- the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
The Complainant has established rights in the name RAGNARÖK ORIGIN by virtue of its registered figurative trade mark. Section 1.10 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”) states that assessment of confusing similarity involves comparing the domain name and the textual components of the relevant mark and that design or figurative/stylised elements which are incapable of representation in domain names are largely disregarded.
Section 1.7 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 makes clear that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. The test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the complainant’s trade mark and the disputed domain name. Section 1.7 adds that the overall facts and circumstances of a case, including relevant website content, may support a finding of confusing similarity in certain situations, particularly where it appears that the respondent registered the domain name precisely because it believed that the domain name was confusingly similar to a mark held by the complainant.
Here, the Respondent’s use of “Ragnarok Origin Mobile | Legend” as the title for its website, as well as the fact that the site is devoted to the Complainant’s game, shows that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name precisely because it believed that the disputed domain name was confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade mark; in particular, the disputed domain name was intended to comprise the initials of the Complainant’s mark “r” and “o”. The letter “m” denoted the word “mobile”.
For the above reasons, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade mark.
The Panel therefore finds that the Complainant has established the first element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
B. Rights or Legitimate InterestsAs explained in section 2.1 of WIPO Overview 3.0, the consensus view is that, where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If not, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element.
Here, the Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorised the Respondent to use its trade mark.
Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy gives examples of circumstances which, if proved, suffice to demonstrate that a respondent possesses rights or legitimate interests.
As to paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy, the Panel has concluded below that the Respondent has used the disputed domain name to intentionally attempt to attract, confuse and profit from Internet users seeking the Complainant’s products and services. Such use of the disputed domain name could not be said to be bona fide.
Nor is there any evidence that paragraphs 4(c)(ii) or (iii) of the Policy apply in the circumstances of this case.
The Panel finds that the Complainant has established a prima facie case of lack of rights or legitimate interests and there is no rebuttal by the Respondent.
The Panel concludes that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and that the Complainant has therefore established the second element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
C. Registered and Used in Bad FaithGiven the evidence of use of the disputed domain name for a website which sets out to impersonate the Complainant and which apparently offers pirated copies of the Complainant’s game – the Respondent has not appeared in the proceeding to dispute the Complainant’s assertion to this effect – the Panel readily concludes that it was registered and is being used in bad faith by the Respondent in accordance with paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. The Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract Internet users to its website for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trade mark.
The Complainant has therefore established the third element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
7. DecisionFor 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
Adam Taylor
Sole Panelist
Date: October 18, 2021