Nexonhq.com

The timeline behind nexonhq.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 AN D MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION NXC Corp. v. Victory Chinedu, Nexon HQ Case No. D2025-4990 1. The Parties The Complainant is NXC Corp., Republic of Korea, represented by KAI International IP Law Firm, Republic of Korea. The Respondent is Victory Chinedu, Nexon HQ, Nigeria. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <nexonhq.com> is registered with Hostinger Operations, UAB (the “Reg istrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was f iled with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on December 2, 2025. On December 2, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request f or registrar verif ication in connection with the disputed domain name. On December 3, 2025, 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 (Redacted for Privacy) and contact inf ormation in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on December 3, 2025, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant did not amend the Complaint. The Center verif ied that the Complaint satisf ied the f ormal requirements of the Unif orm 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 f ormally notif ied the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on December 12, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was January 1, 2026. The Response was f iled with the Center on December 14, 2025. The Center appointed Andrew D. S. Lothian as the sole panelist in this matter on December 24, 2025. The Panel f inds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and page 2 Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7. 4. Factual Background According to the Complaint and Annexes, the Complainant was founded in Seoul, South Korea in 1994, and is currently a Japanese (formerly South Korean) video game publisher that specializes in online games f or PC and mobile. The Complainant’s press release dated April 27, 2021, released via “businesswire” states that the Complainant was first listed on the Tokyo Stock Exchange in December 2011, placed on JPX400 in 2015, added to the Nikkei Stock Index 300 in 2017, and added to the Nikkei 225 in 2020. Said release also noted that the Complainant currently had more than 50 live games on multiple platf orms, including mobile, available in more than 190 countries with major game f ranchises including “MapleStory”, “KartRider” and “Dungeon&Fighter”. More recently, the Complainant has moved into cryptocurrency investment and operations. According to an article in “Crytponews” dated December 16, 2021, an online gaming company and subsidiary of the Complainant named Nexon America announced that it had started accepting a number of crypto assets for in-game purchases as part of a deal with a crypto payment processor named BitPay. Said article also noted that the Complainant had acquired USD 100 million worth of Bitcoin in late April 2021 as a hedge against the debasement of fiat currency, which brought the company a total of BTC 1,717 (at the time worth USD 83.83 million). The Complainant is described in said article as a “gaming giant”. The Complainant owns a large globally distributed portfolio of registered trademarks f or the NEXON mark, among others, the earliest of which appears to be United States of America Registered Trademark Number 2481744 f or the word mark NEXON, registered on August 28, 2001, in Class 41 (Online entertainment, namely, online interactive gaming). The Complainant also owns a large portf olio of domain names containing the said mark, including <nexon.com>, registered on March 28, 1996. The disputed domain name was registered on May 22, 2025, and according to an undated screenshot produced by the Complainant it resolved to a website inviting Internet users to join a “waitlist” by providing their email address. On said screenshot, the said site notes, “Nexo nHQ is where builders, creators, and dreamers unite. Join our early community and shape the f uture of decentralized innovation”. The Complainant also produces a screenshot of the Respondent’s “Nexonhq” “Facebook” page which is headed “Where Innovation Meets Insight,” followed by bullet points “Crypto,” “Business,” and “Culture”. Beneath this, said page promotes the website associated with the disputed domain name by way of a subdomain “waitlist.nexonhq.com”. Both the said “Facebook” page and the Respondent’s “Instagram” page also describe the Respondent’s operation as “NexonHQ | Business & Tech News”. The Respondent also appears to be engaged in the cryptocurrency business. A post on the Respondent’s “Instagram” page s tates, “You’ve heard ‘Web3’ a lot. But it’s not hype – it’s ownership. $NEX lets you move f rom user to stakeholder”. A f urther post on said page states, “Meet $NEX Token The Heart of NexonHQ / $NEX token is the utility token powering everything we’re building at NexonHQ. We use it to f uel: Startup support & competitions / Learning programs & business tools. Access to commerce & rewards in the community / This isn’t just another token, it's how we create value f o r YOU”. The Respondent describes itself as “[...] the founder and operator of NexonHQ, an early-stage entrepreneurship and business media platf orm f ocused primarily on Af rican f ounders, startups, and small business operators”. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy f or a transf er of the disputed domain name. page 3 Notably, the Complainant contends t hat it is one of the world’s largest online game providers and that its trademark is very well-known. The Complainant adds that it has also moved into the virtual currency market through major investments in the Korean cryptocurrency exchange Korbit and the European cryptocurrency exchange Bitstamp, in addition to establishing the online fintech platform Arques. The Complainant asserts that its trademark is very well-known among users of PC games, mobile games, Virtual World games and cryptocurrency transactions worldwide, adding that said mark has gained global brand recognition as a source identif ier f or the products and services of its numerous subsidiary companies. The Complainant contends that the inclusion of its trademark in the disputed domain name is suf f icient to establish conf using similarity f or the purposes of the Policy, adding that the term “hq” is a common abbreviation for “headquarters” and a non-distinctive term which should be disregarded in the comparison, as should the generic Top-Level Do main (“g TLD”) “.co m”. The Complainant submits that the Parties are not related in any way, and that the Complainant has not granted permission to the Respondent to use or register the disputed domain name. The Complainant notes that its mark has been registered since 2001, being 24 years earlier than the registration date of the disputed domain name, and adds that given the uniqueness and worldwide reach of the Complainant’s mark and services, the Respondent was undoubtedly aware of the mark when it registered the disputed domain name. The Complainant notes that the Respondent is currently of f ering business and technology-related news and inf ormation through the website connected to the disputed domain name and is publishing various content regarding startup establishment and entrepreneurship. The Complainant contends that consumers are likely to mistakenly believe that the Complainant is operating a new service intended to support or incubate game-related startups, leading to a high risk of conf usion or misunderstanding. The Complainant concludes that the Respondent is exploiting the fame and reputation of the Complainant’s business in order to attract consumers. B. Respondent The Respondent contends that the Complainant has not satisfied the elements required under the Policy f or a transf er of the disputed domain name. Notably, the Respondent contends that the disputed domain name was registered in good faith for the purpose of building a legitimate business and entrepreneurship platf orm dedicated to entrepreneurship education, startup incubation and f ounder-f ocused content, business news and insights, and Africa-focused economic development. The Respondent adds that its platform does not of f er games, virtual world services, or any products or services related to the Complainant’s gaming business, asserting that the name “NexonHQ” was selected independently and was intended to represent a “next-generation innovation and business hub”, and not to reference, imitate, or trade on the Complainant’s trademark. The Respondent asserts that it has never claimed affiliation with the Complainant, and has neither used the Complainant’s logos, games, branding, or references, nor contacted the Complainant to sell the disputed domain name, adding that its website content, branding, and messaging ref lect its business and entrepreneurship media platf orm, whereby the audience, services, and geographic f ocus are materially dif f erent f rom those of the Complainant. The Respondent contends that, before receiving any notice of the dispute, it had already built and launched a f unctioning website, designed original brand assets and platf orm user interf ace/experience, created and published original business and entrepreneurship content, paid designers, developers, writers, and content creators, maintained staff and contractors on a recurring basis, and invested personal f unds into hosting, branding, and marketing, thus demonstrating bona fide use of the disputed domain name in connection with a real and ongoing business, and establishing the Respondent’s legitimate interest under the Policy. The Respondent denies that the disputed domain name was registered or used in bad faith, contending that it did not target the Complainant’s trademark, seek to disrupt the Complainant’s business, attempt to attract users by creating confusion, or register the disputed domain name for sale to the Complainant or any third page 4 party, adding that any perceived similarity was unintentional and arose solely f rom independent branding decisions, not f rom any attempt to exploit the Complainant’s reputation. The Respondent notes that it is willing to resolve the dispute amicably and without admission of liability, whereby it would transfer the disputed domain name to the Complainant and rebrand, provided that it is allowed reasonable transitional time and that its documented expenses are partially reimbursed. The Panel notes in passing that the request to resolve the dispute according to these terms was rejected by the Complainant. 6. Discussion and Findings 6.1. Preliminary issue: Identity of the Respondent Paragraph 1 of the Rules def ines the Respondent as “the holder of a domain-name registration against which a complaint is initiated”. The Panel nevertheless has discretion to substitute or join another entity as a respondent by way of its general powers as set out in paragraph 10(a) of the Rules. In the Complaint, the Complainant originally listed the Respondent as “Redacted f or Privacy”. The Respondent’s name and contact details were subsequently provided by the Registrar in response to the Center’s verif ication request. As is noted in section 4.4.1 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), as a matter of panel-endorsed practice, in such cases, further to its compliance review and case notification responsibilities, the Center will (a) provide any disclosed underlying registrant information to the complainant, and (b) invite the complainant to amend the complaint to reflect such information. The Center did this in the present case, but the Complainant failed to af firmatively reply to the Center’s invitation to amend the Complaint to ref lect the registrant inf ormation provided by the Registrar. Section 4.4.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 goes on to note that, if the complainant chooses not to amend its complaint, the Center would not normally treat this as a complaint def iciency, although noting that complainants do tend to amend their complaints to ref lect any disclosed underlying registrant information, in particular to avoid raising possible decision enforcement questions by the registrar. Here, the Complainant’s decision not to amend the Complaint, at least to ref lect the contact details of the registrant as provided by the Registrar, could potentially give rise to such enf orcement questions. Section 4.4.5 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 notes however, that in all cases involving a privacy or proxy service and irrespective of the disclosure of any underlying registrant, the appointed panel retains discretion to determine the respondent against which the case should proceed. The Panel notes that the holder of the disputed domain name has been revealed by the Registrar and is satisfied that this person is the underlying registrant of the disputed domain name. Furthermore, that person has f iled the Response, whereby it is evident to the Panel that it has received notif ication of the Complaint and has chosen to answer it. In these circumstances, the Panel is content to join the named holder of the disputed domain name as the Respondent in the present case, which may f acilitate the Registrar’s implementation of any order for transf er of the disputed domain name in the event of the Complainant’s success in the administrative proceeding. 6.2 Substantive Issues A. Identical or Confusingly Similar It is well accepted that the f irst element f unctions 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. page 5 The Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trademark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1. The entirety of the mark is reproduced within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the mark f or the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7. Although the addition of other terms, here, “hq ” may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel f inds the addition of such term d oes not prevent a f inding of conf using similarity between the disputed domain name and the mark f or the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8. The Panel f inds the f irst 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 the Respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name. Although 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 difficult task of “proving a negative”, requiring information that is of ten 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 f orward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name (although the burden of proof always remains on the complainant). If the respondent f ails to come f orward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisf ied the second element. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.1. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds the Complainant has established a prima f acie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name based upon its submissions that its mark is well-known in connection with both its gaming activities and more recent cryptocurrency operations (as evidenced by the news coverage produced), that the inclusion of its mark in the disputed domain name renders this confusingly similar to said mark, that the Parties are not related in any way, and that the Complainant has not granted permission to the Respondent to use or register the disputed domain name. In these circumstances, the burden of production shif ts to the Respondent as discussed above, and the Panel theref ore turns to the Respondent’s submissions on the topic. The essence of the Respondent’s case is that it has a legitimate interest in the term “NexonHQ” because it has made a bona fide use of the disputed domain name in connection with a real and ongoing business, having built its website, designed brand assets, created original content, paid third parties and staf f , and invested personal f unds into its project. For the purposes of the Policy, typical examples of prior use, or demonstrable preparations to use a domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services may include: (i) evidence of business f ormation-related due diligence/legal advice/correspondence, (ii) evidence of credible investment in website development or promotional materials such as advertising, letterhead, or business cards (iii) proof of a genuine (i.e., not pretextual) business plan utilizing the domain name, and credible signs of pursuit of the business plan, (iv) bona fide registration and use of related domain names, and (v) other evidence generally pointing to a lack of indicia of cybersquatting intent. Such indicia are assessed pragmatically in light of the case circumstances, and clear contemporaneous evidence of bona f ide pre-complaint preparations is required. If not independently verifiable by the panel, claimed examples of use or demonstrable preparations to use the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services cannot be merely self- serving but should be inherently credible and supported by relevant pre-complaint evidence. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.2. page 6 Here, the problem for the Respondent’s case is that it has produced absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support its assertion that the website associated with the disputed domain name represents a genuine business other than the existence of the website itself; it is noted that related social media screenshots were produced by the Complainant, not the Respondent. The Respondent’s submissions that it has designed brand assets, created original content, paid third parties and staf f , and invested personal f unds into its project are merely self-serv i ng where unaccompanied by any supporting evidence. Furthermore, even had the Respondent been able to produce evidence of this nature, this would not necessarily have supported the notion that it came by the term “NexonHQ” independently of the Complainant’s mark. The Complainant’s evidence of a substantial global trademark portf olio in respect of the mark NEXON predating the Respondent’s activities by 24 years, together with the Complainant’s high-profile activities under such mark including gaming and cryptocurrency operations, mean that the Panel would have found it difficult to accept that the Respondent selected the term with no ref erence to the Complainant or its mark. Significantly, the Respondent has merely added the additional non-distinctive term “HQ” to the Complainant’s distinctive coined mark in the disputed domain name, and it seems extremely unlikely to the Panel that p rio r to or during the registration process it would not have become aware of the Complainant’s of f icial domain name <nexon.com> o r otherwise, more generally, of the Complainant’s business and trademark. A basic Google search or similar on the distinctive element of the second level of the Respondent’s chosen domain name (the disputed domain name) would undoubtedly have disclosed the Complainant’s interest. While the Respondent asserts that it is in a different line of business from the Complainant, its social media presence indicates that it has an interest in cryptocurrency which matches that of the Complainant. Use of the disputed domain name incorporating an exact representation of the Complainant’s mark f o r a business purpose which is similar to the Complainant’s activities, particularly if as here the Respondent wo uld have known of this, could not be described as bona f ide within the meaning of the Policy. The Respondent has not rebutted the Complainant’s prima facie showing and has not come forward with any relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise. The Panel f inds the second element of the Policy has been established. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel notes that, f or 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 f aith. In the present case, the Panel notes that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name containing an exact representation of the Complainant’s distinctive, coined, NEXON trad emark coupled with the non- distinctive term “hq” f or use in connection with a website of f ering services related to innovation, cryptocurrency, business, and culture. On this topic in particular, it must be noted that the Response containing the Respondent’s denial of bad f aith intent is not accompanied by the certif ication of completeness and accuracy in accordance with paragraph 5(c)(viii) of the Rules. The Panel will theref ore treat any material statements of fact which arise exclusively f rom the Response with a degree of caution. For the reasons described in the preceding section coupled with the evidence produced by the Complainant of its lengthy history predating the registration of the disputed domain name by some 24 years, together with associated media coverage in particular of its activities relating to cryptocurrency, the Panel f inds it inconceivable that the disputed domain name was registered without knowledge of or intent to target the Complainant’s rights. Notably, while the Respondent argues that its use of the disputed domain name does not cut across the Complainant’s activities, it did not deny prior knowledge of the Complainant or its rights in the Response. The Panel f inds that the Respondent’s references to “crypto” under the name “NexonHQ” as reproduced on its social media, which in turn links to the “waitlist” subdomain of the website associated with the disputed page 7 domain name, is likely to be highly misleading to Internet users, and the Panel considers that the Respondent would have known this and intended to benefit from its apparent affiliation with or endorsement by the Complainant due to the inclusion of the NEXON mark in the disputed domain name. In sho rt, such inclusion is a coincidence too far for this Panel, given the Complainant’s longstanding use of the term, its more recent use in connection with cryptocurrency, at least of some f our years’ standing, and the Respondent’s o wn prof essed interest in cryptocurrency. The Panel f inds that by using the disputed domain name, the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, f or commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of conf usion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of such website, conf orm to paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. The Panel f inds that the Complainant has established the third element of the Policy. 7. Decision For the f oregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain name <nexonhq.com> be transf erred to the Complainant. /Andrew D. S. Lothian/ Andrew D. S. Lothian Sole Panelist Date: January 7, 2025

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