Westmore · UDRP DecisionGameloft.store
The Panel ordered transfer of <gameloft.store>. It found the domain confusingly similar to the Complainant’s GAMELOFT trademark, found no rights or legitimate interests because the Respondent was neither authorized nor commonly known by the name and made no bona fide or legitimate noncommercial use, and found bad-faith registration and use based on the mark’s distinctiveness and renown, the Respondent’s prior adverse UDRP proceeding involving <sanofi.store>, a resulting pattern of conduct, passive holding, and the absence of any rebuttal or legitimate explanation.
The timeline behind gameloft.store
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 gameloft.store — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive — as part of UDRP Intelligence:
This decision illustrates how an exact-match domain can be transferred despite having no active website. The bad-faith determination rested on the combined weight of prior trademark rights, the mark’s distinctiveness and industry renown, passive holding, the Respondent’s failure to provide a legitimate explanation, and a prior adverse UDRP decision involving another trademark under the same “.store” Top-Level Domain.
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 GAMELOFT S.E. v. Sherry Ddepues Case No. D2018-2162 1. The Parties The Complainant is GAMELOFT S.E. of Paris, France, internally represented. The Respondent is Sherry Ddepues of Georgia, United States of America (“US”). 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <gameloft.store> is registered with Uniregistrar Corp (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on September 24, 2018. On September 24, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On September 25, 2018, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response, confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the Respondent’s 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 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on October 11, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was October 31, 2018. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on November 1, 2018. The Center appointed Fabrizio Bedarida as the sole panelist in this matter on November 12, 2018. 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, GAMELOFT S.E., is an international publisher and developer of digitally distributed video games, founded in 1999. The Complainant has released more than two hundred games and several have been downloaded by millions of players. The Complainant is a leader in the mobile gaming industry. The Complainant owns various registrations for domain names that include its registered trademark, including <gameloft.com> (registered on April 8, 1999) and <gameloft.net> (registered on February 4, 1999), among others. The Complainant has proven to be the owner of the GAMELOFT trademark, which enjoys protection through numerous registrations worldwide. The Complainant is, inter alia , the owner of: European Union trademark GAMELOFT, number 2473767, registered on March 13, 2006. US trademark GAMELOFT, number 2,474,984, registered on August 7, 2001. International trademark GAMELOFT, number 907208, registered on October 31, 2006. The disputed domain name <gameloft.store> was registered on October 29, 2017, and it is not linked to any website or active page. The Complainant’s trademark registrations predate the registration of the disputed domain name. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant claims that the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s registered trademark; that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests whatsoever with respect to the disputed domain name; and that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings In order for the Complainant to obtain a transfer of the disputed domain name, paragraphs 4(a)(i) – (iii) of the Policy require that the Complainant must demonstrate to the Panel that: (i) The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and (ii) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and (iii) The disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The disputed domain name incorporates the trademark of the Complainant in its entirety and differs from the trademark of the Complainant only in the addition of the “.store” Top-Level Domain. This difference is not sufficient to prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests This Panel finds that the Complainant has made a prima facie case that the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent does not appear to be commonly known by the name “Gameloft” or by any similar name. The Respondent has no connection or affiliation with the Complainant, and the Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized the Respondent to use or register any domain name incorporating the Complainant’s trademark. The Respondent does not appear to make any legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name, nor any use in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. The Respondent has not come forward with any explanation that demonstrates any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent has not replied to the Complainant’s contentions, claiming any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Therefore, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Based on the evidence put forward by the Complainant, the Panel is of the opinion that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s trademark registrations and rights to the GAMELOFT mark when she registered the disputed domain name. This opinion is due to the fact that the Complainant’s trademark is distinctive, it has been widely used for many years, and it is renowned, at least in the gaming field. Consequently, the Respondent was presumably aware of the same when she registered the disputed domain name. The Respondent also appears to have lost in a previous proceeding at the WIPO for having abusively registered the domain name <sanofi.store>, namely another domain name incorporating a renowned third-party trademark ( Sanofi v. Sherry Ddepues , WIPO Case No. D2017-2347 ). It therefore appears that the Respondent has established a pattern of registering domain names that correspond to and/or contain third parties’ trademarks. This pattern of conduct clearly demonstrates bad faith on the part of the Respondent. Another inference of bad faith is given by the fact that the disputed domain name is passively held. The Respondent has not denied the assertions of bad faith made by the Complainant in this proceeding, and it is therefore reasonable to assume that if the Respondent had legitimate purposes for registering and using the disputed domain name she would have at least indicated them. Accordingly, the Panel finds, on the basis of the evidence presented, that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. Therefore, the Complainant has 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 <gameloft.store> be transferred to the Complainant. Fabrizio Bedarida Sole Panelist Date: November 14, 2018
Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.
What Westmore sees around gameloft.store
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.