ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Riot Games, Inc. v. Idham Khalid Case No. D2023-1618 1. The Parties Complainant is Riot Games, Inc., United States of America ("United States"), represented by Marq Vision Inc., Republic of Korea. Respondent is Idham Khalid, Indonesia. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name is registered with Cosmotown, Inc. (the "Registrar"). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on April 10, 2023. On April 13, 2023, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On April 20, 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 Complainant on April 21, 2023, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. Complainant filed an amendment to the Complaint on April 25, 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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on April 26, 2023. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was May 16, 2023. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent's default on May 19, 2023. The Center appointed Stephanie G. Hartung as the sole panelist in this matter on May 25, 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. page 2 4. Factual Background Complainant is a company organized under the laws of the United States that produces, manufactures and distributes online games and related merchants. Complainant has provided evidence that it is the registered owner of various trademarks relating to its brands RIOT GAMES and VALORANT, including, but not limited, to the following: - word mark RIOT GAMES, United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO"), registration number: 4109440, registration date: March 6, 2012, status: active; - word/device mark VALORANT, USPTO, registration number: 6286133, registration date: March 9, 2021, status: active. Moreover, Complainant has demonstrated to own the domain names and which both resolve to Complainant's official websites where it actively promotes its RIOT GAMES and VALORANT trademarks. Respondent, according to the disclosed WhoIs information for the disputed domain name, is a resident of Indonesia who registered the disputed domain name on March 2, 2023. By the time of the rendering of this decision, the disputed domain name does not resolve to any relevant content on the Internet. Complainant, however, has demonstrated that at some point before the filing of the Complaint, the disputed domain name resolved to a website at "www.supportvalorant-riotgames.com", which mimicked Complainant's official support website at "www.support-valorant.riotgames.com" by copying Complainant's trademarks and copyright protected images as well as structural elements such as the layout and position of buttons. Complainant requests that the disputed domain name be transferred to Complainant. 5. Parties' Contentions A. Complainant Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the disputed domain name. Notably, Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is identical to Complainant's RIOT GAMES and VALORANT trademarks which Complainant has used since 2012. Moreover, Complainant asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name since (1) Respondent has not been licensed, permitted or otherwise authorized by Complainant to use its well-known trademarks and (2) the disputed domain name is used to host a website copying the RIOT GAMES and VALORANT trademarks and copyrighted protected content that can be found on Complainant's official websites. Finally, Complainant argues that Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith since (1) Respondent has mimicked Complainant's official support website at "www.support-valorant.riotgames.com" by copying Complainant's trademarks and copyright protected images as well as structural elements such as the layout and position of buttons, (2) Respondent's website is impersonating Complainant's official website to attract the game users to type in their game login information for fake technical support, which leads the potential users to personal information leakage, and (3) the disputed domain name includes the registered trademarks RIOT GAMES and VALORANT as a whole to cause confusion to potential Internet users to think that Respondent's website is official or somehow endorsed by Complainant. B. Respondent Respondent did not reply to Complainant's contentions. page 3 6. Discussion and Findings Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, Complainant carries the burden of proving: (i) that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and (ii) that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and (iii) that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. Respondent's default in the case at hand does not automatically result in a decision in favor of Complainant, however, paragraph 5(f) of the Rules provides that if Respondent does not submit a response, in the absence of exceptional circumstances, the Panel shall decide the dispute solely based upon the Complaint. Further, according to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel may draw such inferences from Respondent's failure to submit a Response as it considers appropriate. 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 Complainant has shown rights in respect of the RIOT GAMES and VALORANT trademarks for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1 The Panel finds the entirety of Complainant's RIOT GAMES and VALORANT is reproduced within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademarks for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7. While the addition of other terms, here "support", may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds the addition of such term does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and Complainant's RIOT GAMES and VALORANT trademarks for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8. 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 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. Having reviewed the record, the Panel finds Complainant has established a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent has not rebutted Complainant's prima facie showing and has not come forward with any relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. page 4 The Panel considers that the record of this case reflects that: Before any notice to Respondent of the dispute, Respondent did not use, nor has it made demonstrable preparations to use, the disputed domain name or a name corresponding to the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy, and WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.2. Respondent (as an individual, business, or other organization) has not been commonly known by the disputed domain name. Paragraph 4(c)(ii) of the Policy, and WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.3. Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue. Paragraph 4(c)(iii) of the Policy, and WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.4. The record contains no other factors demonstrating rights or legitimate interests of Respondent in the disputed domain name. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity (e.g., the sale of counterfeit goods or illegal pharmaceuticals, phishing, distributing malware, unauthorized account access/hacking, impersonation/passing off, or other types of fraud) can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.13.1. 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. The Panel considers that the record of this case reflects that: Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent's website or location or of a product or service on Respondent's website or location. Paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy, and WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.1.4. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity (e.g., the sale of counterfeit goods or illegal pharmaceuticals, phishing, distributing malware, unauthorized account access/hacking, impersonation/passing off, or other types of fraud) constitutes bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.4.. Having reviewed the record, the Panel finds Respondent's registration and use of the disputed domain name constitutes bad faith under the Policy. In the present case, the Panel particularly notes that Respondent not only has created the disputed domain name by combining both of Complainant's trademarks RIOT GAMES and VALORANT, but subsequently mimicked Complainant's official support website at "www.support-valorant.riotgames.com" by copying Complainant's trademarks and copyright protected images as well as structural elements such as the layout and position of buttons, apparently in order to attract the game users to type in their game login information for fake technical support, which leads the potential users to personal information leakage. Such registration and making use of the disputed domain may not be characterized other than bad faith within the meaning of paragraphs 4(a)(iii) and 4(b) of the Policy. Based on the available record, the Panel finds the third element of the Policy has been established. page 5 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. /Stephanie G. Hartung/ Stephanie G. Hartung Sole Panelist Date: June 7, 2023
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy