Dragonmanialegends.com

The timeline behind dragonmanialegends.com

Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.

Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.

ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Gameloft S.E. v. Domain Admin Case No. D2023-2965 1. The Parties The Complainant is Gameloft S.E., France, internally represented. The Respondent is Domain Admin, British Virgin Islands. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <dragonmanialegends.com> is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 11, 2023. On July 11, 2023, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On July 13, 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 Registrant) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on July 14, 2023, 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 July 19, 2023, 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 July 26, 2023. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was August 15, 2023. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on August 17, 2023. The Center appointed Tobias Zuberbühler as the sole panelist in this matter on August 28, 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 The Complainant is an international publisher and developer of video games founded in 1999. The Complainant has released more than 200 games, and several have been downloaded by millions of players. The game “Dragon Mania Legends” has been downloaded more than 100 million times on the Google Play Store. The Complainant owns trademark registrations in various jurisdictions, including the European Union trademark DRAGON MANIA LEGENDS (No. 13220711, registered on December 17, 2014) and the French trademark DRAGON MANIA (No. 4019673, registered on November 8, 2013). The disputed domain name was registered on January 22, 2015, and resolved to an inactive website. It is currently resolving to a website with pay-per-click links and is offered for sale on the Registrar’s website. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant alleges that it has satisfied all elements of the Policy, paragraph 4. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainant has submitted sufficient evidence to demonstrate its registered rights in the DRAGON MANIA LEGENDS trademark. The DRAGON MANIA LEGENDS trademark is wholly reproduced in the disputed domain name. It has become a consensus view among UDRP panels that the applicable Top-Level Domain (“TLD”) in a domain name is a standard registration requirement and as such may be disregarded when assessing confusing similarity under the first element of the Policy (see the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0 ”), sections 1.11.1 and 1.11.2). Therefore, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s trademark. The Complainant has thus fulfilled the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests There are no indications before the Panel of any rights or legitimate interests of the Respondent in respect of the disputed domain name. The Complainant contends that the Respondent is neither affiliated with the Complainant nor making any bona fide use of the disputed domain name. Based on the Complainant’s credible contentions, the Panel finds that the Complainant, having made out a prima facie case, which remains unrebutted by the Respondent, has fulfilled the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. page 3 C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Under the circumstances of this case, it can be inferred that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s trademark when registering the disputed domain name. By offering the disputed domain name for sale, the Respondent has sought to capitalize on the Complainant’s trademark and reputation (see Claudie Pierlot v. Yinglong Ma, WIPO Case No. D2018-2466 ). Accordingly, the Complainant has also fulfilled 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 <dragonmanialegends.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /Tobias Zuberbühler/ Tobias Zuberbühler Sole Panelist Date: September 11, 2023

Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.