Westmore · UDRP DecisionBetakeysgta5.com
The Panel ordered transfer of <betakeysgta5.com> after finding all three UDRP elements satisfied. The domain incorporated the Complainant’s GTA mark, while the added terms “betakeys” and “5” reinforced an apparent connection with a beta version of GTA V. The Panel found no rights or legitimate interests because the domain resolved to a site purporting to offer an unreleased beta version and appearing to operate as a phishing scheme. The same confusion-based exploitation supported the finding of registration and use in bad faith.
The timeline behind betakeysgta5.com
Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.
Westmore reconstructs the full history behind betakeysgta5.com — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive — as part of UDRP Intelligence:
The case illustrates how terms added to a trademark can increase confusion when they describe anticipated access to the trademark owner’s product. It also shows that a purported offer of nonexistent prerelease software, coupled with apparent collection of personal information by false pretenses, can be decisive under both the rights-or-legitimate-interests and bad-faith elements.
Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.
WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. v. Vasile Adrian Chindris Case No. D2013-0663 1. The Parties The Complainant is Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. of Los Angeles, California, United States of America, represented by Mitchell, Silberberg & Knupp, LLP, United States of America. The Respondent is Vasile Adrian Chindris of Sighetu Marmatei, MM, Romania. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <betakeysgta5.com> is registered with 1&1 Internet AG (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on April 10, 2013. On April 11, 2013, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On April 12, 2012, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. The Center verified that 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(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on April 17, 2013. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was May 7, 2013. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on May 8, 2013. The Center appointed Michael J. Spence as the sole panelist in this matter on May 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 The Complainant is a global leader in the development and supply of consumer video games, including the immensely successful GRAND THEFT AUTO or GTA. The Complainant has rights in the trade mark GTA. GTA is one of the most successful video games of all time. GTA V was released in November 2011 and was, the Complainant contends, "one of the most anticipated games in the world". A “beta” version of a video game is a "pre-release version that provides early access to a limited number of users for the purpose of testing the game". 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its trade mark; that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and that it has been registered and is being 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 contains the Complainant's trade mark in its entirety. The addition of “betakeys” and “5” does nothing to distinguish the disputed domain name from the Complainant's trade mark. This is because the number “5” suggests an allusion to version five of the GTA game, and the term “betakeys” may be taken to be descriptive of the video game industry practice of pre-releasing 'beta' versions, suggesting that the site provides “keys” with which to access such a “beta” version of the game. Far from distinguishing the disputed domain name from the Complainant's trade mark, this reinforces the suggestion of a connection with the Complainant's successful game. The Panel therefore finds that the Complainant has established the first element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy in relation to the disputed domain name. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests It is for the Complainant to establish, at least prima facie that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name ( Croatia Airlines d.d. v. Modern Empire Internet Ltd. , WIPO Case No. D2003-0455 , Belupo d.d. v. WACHEM d.o.o. WIPO Case No. D2004-0110 ). In this case the Respondent has no connection with the Complainant’s trade mark. The likelihood of confusion is very strong. Moreover, the Respondent is using the disputed domain name for a site that purports to offer a “beta” version of the Complainant's game, though no such version has ever been released. The site appears to constitute a so-called “phishing” scheme in which user's personal information is gathered by false pretenses for unlawful purposes. It is clear that such use cannot give rise to rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Panel therefore finds that the Complainant has established the second element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy in relation to the disputed domain name. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith As indicated above, in this case the Respondent appears to be attempting to exploit the strong likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain name and the Complainant's trade mark for commercial gain. Such circumstances constitute perhaps the clearest case of registration and use in bad faith. The Panel therefore finds that the Complainant has established the third element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy in relation to the disputed domain name. 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 <betakeysgta5.com> be transferred to the Complainant. Michael J. Spence Sole Panelist Date: May 30, 2013
Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.
What Westmore sees around betakeysgta5.com
The decision is only the record. Westmore connects it to the cases, authorities, panelists, parties and domain evidence surrounding it.

A short, grounded explanation drawn only from this decision's record — not legal advice or a prediction.
Grounded in the Westmore record for this decision. Research/informational only — not legal advice or a prediction of any outcome.
The decision is only the beginning.
You've seen what happened. Now discover the deeper intelligence behind the case, the panelist, the parties and the authorities that matter.
Go beyond the public record: see how this case has been cited, find comparable decisions, analyze the panelist and apply the relevant authorities to your Matter.
Westmore Professional · $395/month
Research with UDRP IntelligenceWestmore AI drafts an attorney-review-ready UDRP response from your facts, grounded in the exact panel and closest precedent.
$895 one-time per matter · no subscription required. Self-help drafting aid — not legal advice.
Build your responseWestmore UDRP records draw on WIPO-indexed decisions and are provided for research and informational purposes only. Not legal advice, a clearance opinion, or a prediction of any outcome.