Menaceproject.com

The timeline behind menaceproject.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 Overhype Studios GmbH, Hooded Horse Inc. v. Operations M, Unocompania / Biggiko LLC (ООО “Биггико”) Case No. D2026-1499 1. The Parties The Complainants are Overhype Studios GmbH (“first Complainant”), Germany and Hooded Horse Inc. (“second Complainant”), United States of America (“United States”), internally represented by the second Complainant. The Respondent is Operations M, Unocompania, Costa Rica / Biggiko LLC (ООО “Биггико”), Belarus. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <menaceproject.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 April 9, 2026. On April 9, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On April 10, 2026, 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 (Biggiko LLC (ООО “Биггико”)) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on April 11, 2026, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed amended Complaints on April 12, 2026 and April 15, 2026. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended Complaints 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 April 16, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was May 6, 2026. The Response was filed with the Center on May 6, 2026. page 2 The Center appointed Andrew D. S. Lothian as the sole panelist in this matter on May 21, 2026. 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 first Complainant is a German limited liability company with its registered office in Hamburg, Germany. It is the developer of the video game “MENACE” (capitalized as such), a turn-based tactical role-playing game published on the Steam platform and other digital distribution platforms. The first Complainant is the owner of German Registered Trademark Number 302021025484 for the word mark MENACE, filed on November 23, 2021, and registered on February 14, 2022, in Classes 9, 28, and 41. It is also the owner of European Union Trade Mark Number 018704531 for the word mark MENACE, filed on May 17, 2022, with priority claim from November 23, 2021, and registered on October 26, 2022, in Classes 9, 28, and 41. The first Complainant also owns a United States trademark application with serial number 97467758 for the stylized mark MENACE TURN BASED TACTICS, with “TURN BASED TACTICS” disclaimed, which received a Notice of Allowance on August 8, 2023, but which has not yet proceeded to grant. The second Complainant is a Texas, United States corporation, which is the exclusive worldwide publisher and licensee of the said “MENACE” video game, and is responsible for its marketing, distribution, and commercial exploitation. The first Complainant has issued a formal authorization letter dated April 7, 2026, a copy of which has been provided to the Panel, which notes that, pursuant to a publishing agreement dated May 9, 2023, it has granted the second Complainant an exclusive worldwide license to publish, market, publicly display, publicly perform, and distribute the video game “MENACE” and all related projects, and that the first Complainant authorizes the second Complainant to act as its co-Complainant in the present administrative proceeding, with permission given to the second Complainant’s General Counsel to represent both Complainants. For convenience, the first and second Complainants will be referred to collectively as “the Complainant” in this Decision unless the context otherwise indicates. The disputed domain name was registered on October 7, 2025. The Complainant’s screenshots of the associated website dated April 8, 2026, show a holding page suggesting that a game called “PROJECT MENACE” was coming soon. On March 16, 2026, the director of a limited liability company organized under the laws of Belarus named Biggiko LLC (ООО “Биггико”) (“Biggiko”), issued cease and desist and formal pre-trial claim letters to the Complainant regarding the alleged unauthorized use of the said company’s trademark MENACE. In the said letters, the said company asserted its ownership of two registered trademarks in respect of the mark MENACE, namely Russian Federation Registered Trademark Number 1129122, and Belarusian Registered Trademark Number 81292, both registered in connection with computer and video games. The said company also noted that it had developed its own game through various dedicated websites, including one at the disputed domain name. The said letters went on to note that the game developed by the first Complainant and published by the second Complainant provides full Russian language localization features, suggesting targeting of relevant language marketplaces. The said letters were followed by letters to the second Complainant from a law firm representing the said company, dated April 3, 2026. The law firm requested the Complainant to cease using the MENACE mark in connection with video games in the territories of the Russian Federation and Belarus page 3 and to refrain from any future such use, to remove the Complainant’s “MENACE” game from platforms accessible in the said territories, and to remove the said Russian language localization features. According to certificates produced by the Complainant, the Russian Federation registered trademark held by Biggiko was registered on July 3, 2025, with priority from May 12, 2025, and the Belorussian registered trademark was registered on June 20, 2025, with priority from May 12, 2025. The Complainant produces examples of media coverage showing that in August 2023 its said game was announced at Gamescom, under the MENACE mark, stated to be the world’s largest video game trade show. The coverage notes that the said game will launch the following year on the Steam and Epic platforms, adding that players can “wishlist” the game immediately on their chosen storefront. On September 20, 2024, Steam News announced that over 250,000 wishlist entries had been received for the Complainant’s “MENACE” game, placing it within the top 100 most-wishlisted games on that platform. By December 5, 2024, the Complainant was able to announce (as covered in the gaming media) that the forthcoming “MENACE” game had been featured in the PC Gaming Show’s Most Wanted list for the second year in a row. The said game’s intended release date was announced by the Complainant in a “Dev Diary” dated December 13, 2024, as scheduled for the Fall of 2025, with trailer and demo available by September 29, 2025. The official launch of the game eventually took place on February 5, 2026, and at the conclusion of that month, it was announced as one of the top 12 releases on Steam by revenue. By April 1, 2026, the Complainant announced that the said game had sold over 250,000 copies since its launch, which announcement was covered in the gaming press. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the disputed domain name. Notably, the Complainant contends that the first and second Complainants’ rights and commercial interests are directly affected by the Respondent’s conduct, and that the second Complainant has direct commercial interests in the MENACE mark, and in the outcome of the present administrative proceeding. The Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s MENACE mark in its entirety as its dominant and distinctive element, with the addition of the generic word “project”, adding that the latter word is commonly used in the video game industry to refer to games in development. The Complainant contends that this makes the combination directly evocative of a project associated with the Complainant’s mark. The Complainant submits that the Respondent has never been authorized, licensed, or otherwise permitted by the Complainant to use the MENACE mark or to register any domain name incorporating it, adding that none of the three circumstances in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy applies. The Complainant notes that the substantive content on the website associated with the disputed domain name consists of six images, adding (with evidence) that an analysis of the website elements and meta data associated with the images shows natural-language scene descriptions characteristic of prompts to an artificial intelligence (“AI”) image generator rather than filenames consistent with an ordinary game-asset workflow. For example, an image is named in the website code as “<img src=“ images/[Mission Briefing] 2 men cutting a blob (scene 1).png” alt=“The Beginning”>” and the associated metadata identifies OpenAI’s GPT-4o as the creator and classifies the source type as “trainedAlgorithmicMedia”. The Complainant states that it does not consider the use of AI images as determinative under the Policy but contends that the fact that AI-generated images constitute the sole content of the page reinforces the conclusion that the website is a low-effort placeholder page assembled to create the appearance of a project, page 4 rather than evidence of bona fide preparations to offer goods or services, adding that there is no corresponding public trace of the Respondent’s alleged project’s existence in the ordinary places where genuine game projects are typically presented to players, platforms, press, or content creators, which it states is difficult to reconcile with the ordinary commercial logic of a bona fide game project. The Complainant submits that the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, “menaceproject”, or the mark MENACE, according to the Registrar-disclosed registrant data, and, even if the registrant name “Operations M” is taken as an abbreviation of “Operations Menace”, the Respondent is not known by that term independently of the disputed domain name. The Complainant states that it believes the registrant name to be a “front ” for Biggiko, which issued the cease and desist notices and is the owner of the Russian Federation and Belarusian trademarks described in the factual background section above. The Complainant notes that the website associated with the disputed domain name purports to promote a commercial project, indicating that the Respondent is not making noncommercial use thereof. The Complainant asserts that the said trademarks, acquired after those of the Complainant, were obtained as a pretext to legitimize a domain name registration, circumvent the Policy, or impede the senior mark holder’s exercise of its rights, on the basis of three features, as follows: First, the timing of the Respondent’s trademark registrations, being three years after the Complainant’s European Union Trade Mark, two years after the Complainant’s public MENACE game reveal, contemporaneous to the Complainant’s game’s prominence on the applicable platform, and shortly before said game’s originally announced release window. Secondly, the filing strategy of the said marks, noting that these were filed exclusively in the Russian Federation and Belarus where the Complainant may face practical obstacles in challenging them, rather than in territories where the Complainant’s prior rights would have come into view, adding that such marks do not form part of a broader strategy of international protection through ordinary channels. The Complainant contends that all of this is difficult to reconcile with the Respondent’s purported plans for a video game project intended for commercial distribution, and its awareness of global platforms such as Steam, as focused on in the cease and desist correspondence. The Complainant concludes that the Respondent’s said filing pattern is consistent with an effort to create leverage based on later-acquired local rights rather than with ordinary good-faith brand adoption. Thirdly, the goods and services in respect of which the Respondent’s trademarks are registered, which encompass not only computer game software but also cryptocurrency wallets, NFT minting applications, fashion show organization, online food ordering, financial auditing, personnel recruitment, casino and gambling services, and hundreds of other unrelated items, compared to the goods and services that a game developer would actually provide, exemplified by those covered by the Complainant’s trademark registrations. The Complainant asserts that this is consistent with the Respondent having made opportunistic trademark registrations designed to maximize enforcement surface area rather than to protect a genuine business. The Complainant submits that the prominence of its “MENACE” game and timing of its public reveal, subsequent press coverage, and wishlist popularity on Steam by or before October 7, 2025 (noting also the Respondent’s familiarity with that platform as evidenced by the cease and desist correspondence) mean that it is implausible that a party independently selecting the identical mark for a video game project would have been unaware of the Complainant and its mark. The Complainant acknowledges that “menace” is an ordinary dictionary word but adds that the totality of the circumstances must be considered to determine whether the Respondent targeted the Complainant’s mark, which the Complainant asserts is the case, contending that the Respondent cannot plausibly claim to have arrived at the identical title without awareness of the Complainant’s game bearing in mind the identity of the Parties’ commercial fields and goods and services, the timing and visibility of the Complainant’s game nearing release, and the fact that the Respondent chose an identical English-language title rather than a Russian or Cyrillic equivalent despite the fact that its cease and desist correspondence focuses on Russian language exploitation. The Complainant page 5 submits that these aspects, taken together, support an inference of targeting of the Complainant’s mark by the Respondent. The Complainant contends that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract Internet users for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark, noting that the disputed domain name contains the Complainant’s mark coupled with a word evocative of a game in development, whereby Internet users may encounter the disputed domain name when seeking information about the Complainant’s game and reasonably believe that it is the Complainant’s official project page. The Complainant asserts that the Respondent intended to disrupt the Complainant’s business, adding that the timing of the Respondent’s actions reveals a pattern calibrated to the Complainant’s commercial trajectory. The Complainant submits that this sequence of first filing for marks as the game approached release, secondly, registering the disputed domain name amid the Complainant’s pre-launch marketing push, and thirdly, asserting rights only after the game’s commercial viability was established, indicates a deliberate strategy to disrupt a competitor’s business at its most commercially sensitive moments, not the conduct of a party that independently adopted a coincidentally identical name. The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name was part of a scheme including the Respondent’s trademark registrations that was intended to pressure the Complainant into withdrawing its game or at least restricting its Russian language support for players globally, noting the website associated with the disputed domain name was populated with AI-generated placeholder content, and that the Respondent then pointed to the existence of the disputed domain name as proof of legitimate use to bolster cease and desist demands against the senior mark holder, conduct which the Complainant adds is consistent with registration primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor (noting that “competitor” under the Policy is not limited to direct commercial rivals but includes a person who operates in opposition to another for some means of commercial gain). The Complainant notes that the registrant address data initially was concealed behind a privacy or proxy service, and then was revealed as a physical address in Georgia, with a country designation of Costa Rica, and a telephone number with an international dialling code for Spain, all of which the Complainant contends supports an inference of a deliberate effort to obscure the true identity and geographic location of the party controlling the disputed domain name. The Complainant asserts that such conduct is consistent with a registrant that anticipated challenge and sought to frustrate and obfuscate identification, not with a party that registered the disputed domain name for legitimate purposes. B. Respondent The Respondent contends that the Complainant has not satisfied the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the disputed domain name. Notably, the Respondent states that it does not formally dispute the first element under the Policy, recognizing that confusing similarity may exist if acknowledged by the Panel. The Respondent asserts that it has clear and well-founded rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name on the basis that it has made bona fide preparations to use this in connection with a genuine offering of goods and services, namely that Biggiko is a Belarusian company engaged in the development of a video game titled “Project Menace” with a planned commercial release in 2027-2028, that the disputed domain name was registered on October 7, 2025 as the dedicated web presence for the project, that the Respondent had plans to create said game and has been developing the relevant software for several years, well before registering the disputed domain name and filing for the trademark on May 12, 2025. The Respondent states that “Unocompania” is the registrant of the disputed domain name, adding that the connection between “Unocompania” and Biggiko is not disputed. The Respondent adds that further evidence of its bona fide intent is demonstrated by its registration of domain names related to the said project targeting the specific geographic markets where it is intended to be released, namely <menacegame.by> (registered on October 9, 2025), <menace-game.by> (registered on page 6 October 9, 2025), <menacegame.ru> (registered on October 24, 2025), and <menace-game.ru> (registered on October 24, 2025). 1 The Respondent states that the disputed domain name is the English language counterpart to regionally focused websites corresponding to the geo-targeted domain names, adding that their existence confirms that the Respondent’s digital infrastructure was built to support the commercial release of the game in the Russian Federation and Belarus. The Respondent says that the Complainant demands an incorrect standard of assessment requiring public visibility characteristic of a game at the final stage of development or post-release, despite the fact that the Respondent’s project is in an early stage of development, adding that the elements such as a development blog and a public team is not a mandatory criterion for establishing bona fide preparations to use the disputed domain name in accordance with the Policy, and asserting that early-stage projects frequently maintain limited public-facing materials prior to formal marketing campaigns or publisher announcements. The Respondent indicates that the Complainant’s disregard for the Respondent’s cease and desist correspondence and the filing of the Complaint based on manifestly unsubstantiated grounds have materially disrupted the Respondent’s development timeline and business operations, involving the Respondent in redirecting significant resources towards securing and defending its intellectual property rights in the Russian Federation and Belarus, which has delayed “critical processes related to the game’s commercial release”. The Respondent adds that the Complainant’s conduct as documented in the cease and desist correspondence “reflects a pattern of aggressive enforcement against a legitimate rights holder operating in its home market”. The Respondent notes that the Complainant did not file a complaint against the Respondent until it had received said correspondence, which described the Respondent’s intention to file formal trademark infringement complaints with the operators of the Steam and Epic platforms. The Respondent adds that the significance of the Complainant’s chronology is overstated and that it disregards evidence of the Respondent’s independent business activities and trademark rights in its principal markets. The Respondent argues that the Complainant cannot treat AI-generated images as probative of the absence of a real project having conceded that their use is not inherently determinative under the Policy, adding that the Respondent’s website is a marketing announcement page and its visual materials are intended solely as preliminary promotional materials for an early-stage project and were not presented as gameplay footage or finalized in-game assets, and that the existence or nonexistence of finalized marketing materials is not determinative under the Policy. The Respondent asserts that the substance of the development work, namely code, game engine, and gameplay mechanics, takes place inside the company, not on a landing page, adding that the alleged absence of demonstrable development progress says nothing about the internal state of production, that it is a standard business decision for small and mid-sized studios at early stages of development to withhold details to protect intellectual property, and that “demonstrable preparations to use” requires preparatory acts, not publicly visible progress. The Respondent contends that “those acts exist and are documented by the Respondent”. The Respondent submits that its registered trademarks are issued by competent national trademark authorities following substantive examination, that they are the senior marks in their respective jurisdictions where the Complainant’s European Union Trade Mark is of no legal effect and where the Complainant made no trademark applications, that the use classes of such marks relate to the commercial infrastructure of a video game business, and that the Complainant’s characterization of the specification as opportunistic relies on cherry-picking peripheral items that are only a small subset of a core that is consistent with the Respondent’s stated business purpose. The Respondent contends that the composition is the standard output of any competent IP practitioner advising a gaming company in the Russian Federation or Belarus, and mirrors the specifications routinely filed by established gaming studios in those registries. 1 The Panel consulted the registration record of the registries concerned as the Respondent did not provide details of the registration dates of the additional domain names. See WIPO Overview 3.1, section 4.8 concerning the Panel conducting searches of publicly available material in order to assist it in its determination. page 7 The Respondent submits that previous cases under the Policy cited by the Complainant are distinguishable because the respondents in those cases were unable to provide any evidence of genuine commercial activity predating the domain or trademark registration. The Respondent adds that the present case is fundamentally different because here the Respondent has made significant efforts, has invested financial and human resources in software development, and has financial records, game design documents, and int ernal correspondence that together demonstrate a real project in active development. The Respondent submits that the Complainant’s case on bad faith rests on inferences drawn from chronology and assumptions, adding that when the full record is considered it can be seen that the disputed domain name was neither registered nor used in bad faith. The Respondent states that there is no evidence that the disputed domain name was registered to sell it to the Complainant or a competitor, adding that there has been no approach regarding such sale. The Respondent adds that the disputed domain name was not registered to block the Complainant, nor is there any pattern of related conduct, noting that the Complainant has its own web presence and is not prevented from operating online. The Respondent asserts that the disputed domain name was not registered primarily to disrupt the Complainant’s business, and that Complainant’s central narrative of Respondent actions that are calibrated to the Complainant’s commercial trajectory is constructed from a series of coincidences in timing that admit an entirely legitimate explanation. The Respondent states that the chronology describes a sequence of ordinary, legitimate business behavior, with an independent and legitimate explanation, whereby development of “Project Menace” commenced in 2023, trademark applications were filed in May 2025 as a natural and foreseeable step in brand protection, the disputed domain name (which is not a prop assembled for litigation) was registered in October 2025 as a dedicated web presence, and cease and desist correspondence was sent in March and April 2026 after the release of the Complainant’s game on Steam, whereby it became commercially accessible to consumers in the Russian Federation and Belarus where the Respondent holds registered rights. The Respondent argues that this latter step was not a preemptive strike but rather a formal mandatory pre-trial claim required under applicable law, noting that, before the launch of the Complainant’s game on February 5, 2026, there was no actionable infringement in the Russian Federation or Belarus. The Respondent notes that its communications related to the jurisdictions in which its rights could be enforced and are not indicative of bad faith. The Respondent asserts that the Complainant is selectively reading coincidences in timing as evidence of intent, while ignoring the documentary record of a genuine commercial project that predates each of those milestones. The Respondent contends that the Complainant’s argument regarding the Respondent not seeking broader trademark rights inverts the ordinary logic of trademark law, whereby a party is entitled and expected to seek trademark protection in the jurisdictions where it actually conducts business and where its commercial interests are concentrated as a natural and legally appropriate course of action, namely here, the Russian Federation and Belarus. The Respondent adds that the seeking of such local protections is common to small independent studios and cannot be characterized as bad faith, noting that it has not infringed on the Complainant’s rights in the European Union, yet the Complainant has infringed the Respondent’s rights in the Russian Federation and Belarus. The Respondent submits that the Policy is designed to address cybersquatting, not to suppress legitimate competition or to allow one developer to monopolize a common English word across an entire industry, adding that the present case concerns coexistence of trademark rights and competing commercial activities in different jurisdictions rather than typical cybersquatting. The Respondent asserts that it has its own product, its own registered marks, and its own development resources, adding that it did not register the disputed domain name to target the Complainant or exploit its goodwill but as part of an independently developed commercial video game project in which the Respondent has undertaken trademark filings, software development activities, and market preparation efforts focused primarily on the Russian and Belarusian markets. The Respondent contends that the Complainant has provided no evidence that any actual user has confused the disputed domain name with the Complainant’s official website or Steam page adding that an intentional attempt to attract a user through confusion is required rather than a theoretical possibility of confusion. The page 8 Respondent submits that its project contains no elements of the Complainant’s branding nor any reference to the Complainant or its games, whereby a user would see it as an announcement for a forthcoming game, not a copy of the Complainant’s project, adding that the Complainant’s game has a well-established presence on Steam whereby a user searching for such game would find the official sources before encountering the disputed domain name. The Respondent asserts that its choice of an English language title as reflected in its various domain names is not evidence of targeting but is the industry standard as demonstrated by Wargaming, 4A Games, Battlestate Games, and GSC Game World “among many others”. The Respondent states that such names are adopted precisely because the primary global distribution platforms, Steam and Epic, function in English, and that commercial ambitions extend beyond local markets, adding that this is consistent with the Respondent’s future plans for international distribution, supporting no inference of targeting or finding of bad faith. The Respondent adds that its familiarity with the distribution platform does not entail familiarity with every product listed on it, including that of the Complainant, adding that Steam hosts over 50,000 games and thousands of “coming soon” and wishlist status titles, noting that the Respondent first referred to the Complainant’s Steam page more than six weeks after the Complainant’s game’s commercial release, and that the record does not support any awareness of such game before then. The Respondent submits that the registrant contact data does not support an inference of bad faith, stating that no privacy or proxy service was used in this case, and notification of the Complaint was successfully delivered to the Respondent, which had in any event publicly identified itself as the operator of the corresponding project in the cease and desist correspondence. The Respondent adds that “Unocompania” is the legal entity with a mailing address in Georgia, that Biggiko is registered in Minsk, Belarus, and that the Spanish telephone number belongs to a representative of the Respondent who operates remotely, such multi-jurisdictional contact details being the norm for companies with distributed teams and international operations, there being no legal requirement for all contact details to correspond to a single jurisdiction. 6. Discussion and Findings 6.1. Preliminary issue: Multiple Complainants Paragraph 10(e) of the UDRP Rules grants a panel the power to consolidate multiple domain name disputes. At the same time, paragraph 3(c) of the UDRP Rules provides that a complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that the domain names are registered by the same domain-name holder. In assessing whether a complaint filed by multiple unrelated complainants may be brought against a single respondent, panels look at whether (i) the complainants have a specific common grievance against the respondent, or the respondent has engaged in common conduct that has affected the complainants in a similar fashion, and (ii) it would be equitable and procedurally efficient to permit the consolidation. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Select UDRP Questions (“WIPO Overview 3.1”), section 4.11.1. Noting the circumstances of the case, the Panel is satisfied both regarding the common grievance of the Complainants concerning the Respondent, and that the Respondent has engaged in common conduct affecting them in a similar fashion. Notably, the first Complainant is the owner of the MENACE trademarks and is the developer of the eponymous game, while the second Complainant has been granted exclusive authority by virtue of a publishing agreement to market, distribute, and commercially exploit it. Any actions of the Respondent targeting the said trademarks will therefore affect both of the Complainants in a similar fashion and would give rise to a specific common grievance against the Respondent. Furthermore, there appears to the Panel be no reason why it would not be equitable and procedurally efficient to permit the consolidation, noting also that the Respondent has not raised any opposition to this matter. The Panel therefore orders consolidation of the Complainants’ respective complaints against the Respondent. page 9 6.2. Preliminary issue: Identity of the Respondent Paragraph 1 of the Rules defines 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. Here, the Registrar-verified holder data consists of registrant name of “Operations M” and a registrant organization of “Unocompania” with an address in Tbilisi [Georgia], Costa Rica. The Response however has been prepared by Biggiko. This entity claims an affiliation to “Unocompania”, although no evidence of any relationship is produced. In light of the fact that the Complainant itself directs the Complaint both to “Unocompania” and Biggiko, suggesting that the former is a “front ” for the latter, and that Biggiko itself has chosen to file a Response in the administrative proceeding, the Panel is content to join Biggiko as Respondent in this proceeding. “Unocompania” will not be replaced by Biggiko in the instance to ensure that the Registrar will be able to implement any transfer order. Despite being prepared to join Biggiko as Respondent in order to ensure that the Respondent has a fair opportunity to state its case in the present proceeding, the Panel notes that it has concerns regarding the accuracy and legitimacy of the registrant data in this case, which will be discussed further below. 6.3. Substantive issues: Three Elements 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 3.1, section 1.7. The Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trademark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, 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 for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.7. Although the addition of other terms, here, “project” 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 the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.8. The applicable Top-Level Domain (“TLD”) in a domain name (e.g., “.com”, “.club”, “.nyc”) is viewed as a standard registration requirement and as such is disregarded under the first element confusing similarity test. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.11.1. The Panel notes in passing that the Respondent concedes this element where, as here, the Panel finds confusing similarity. 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 the Respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name. page 10 Although the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, panels have recognized that proving that 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 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 (although the burden of proof always remains on the complainant). If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.1. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel notes that the Complainant submits that the Respondent has never been authorized, licensed, or otherwise permitted by the Complainant to use the MENACE mark or to register any domain name incorporating it, and that none of the three circumstances in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy applies. The Panel also notes that the Complainant goes on to assert that the Respondent’s alleged computer game project is a sham, that the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name or the mark MENACE (according to registrant data), that the Respondent bears to be engaged in a commercial, as opposed to a noncommercial project, and that the filing strategy behind the Respondent’s trademarks appears to be to select jurisdictions where the Complainant would face practical problems in challenging them, whereby they do not form part of a genuine and broader strategy of international protection. The Panel further notes that the Complainant criticizes the scope of protection sought in respect of the Respondent’s trademarks as unrealistic and unduly wide having regard to the Respondent’s claim of being a video game developer. Finally, the Panel notes the Complainant’s central contention that the timing, prominence, and popularity of the Complainant’s MENACE trademark and eponymous game mean that the Respondent cannot plausibly claim to have arrived at the identical title without awareness of the Complainant’s game. The Complainant’s narrative asserts, on the basis of the detailed timeline which it supplies and evidences, that the Respondent most probably intended to target the Complainant’s MENACE trademark and that the Respondent’s alleged preparations to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services (including the registration of trademarks in jurisdictions local to it and the use of AI- generated website content) are pretextual. In short, the Complainant asserts that the Respondent knew of its preparations relating to the “MENACE” game and registered the disputed domain name to disrupt this, using local trademark registrations as part of a scheme to demand some form of settlement from the Complainant, further to the issue of cease and desist notices after the Complainant had launched its game. In light of these submissions, the Panel finds the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and therefore turns to the Respondent’s case in rebuttal. The Respondent asserts that it has created an independently conceived and developed commercial video game project of a similar name to that of the Complainant, targeted to Russian-speaking countries, using the same common English dictionary word “menace”, coincidentally at about the same time as the Complainant’s project. The Respondent’s supporting evidence consists exclusively of its Russian and Belarusian registered trademarks, the website content associated with the disputed domain name (produced by the Complainant but discussed in the Respondent’s submissions) and the fact of the registration of certain additional geo-targeted domain names. In short, the Respondent argues that the case involves the legitimate coexistence of trademark rights and competing commercial activities in different jurisdictions rather than cybersquatting. The consensus view of panels under the Policy is that the existence of a respondent trademark does not automatically confer rights or legitimate interests on the respondent. Panels have generally declined to find rights or legitimate interests in a respondent’s domain name on the basis of a corresponding trademark where the overall circumstances demonstrate that such trademark was obtained primarily to circumvent the complainant’s assertion of its rights or otherwise prevent the complainant’s exercise of its rights (even if only in a particular jurisdiction). Absent evidence of such circumstances indicating pretext however, panels have page 11 been reluctant to reject a respondent trademark registration out of hand. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.12.2. In this case, therefore, the Panel must pay close attention to the circumstances in which the Respondent’s trademarks were obtained. There are two possibilities outlined by the Parties’ submissions. First, that contended for by the Complainant, that the trademarks relate to a scheme as described above, whereby there is no genuine business behind them. Secondly, that contended for by the Respondent, that the Respondent registered the trademarks and exhibits these as part of its demonstrable preparations to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services, in accordance with paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy. The offering concerned is said to be the provision of its own computer game entitled “Project Menace” with a planned commercial release in 2027-2028. The essence of the Respondent’s case is that before any notice to it of the dispute, it has made demonstrable preparations to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, conform to paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy. As noted above, however, the only evidence of such preparations is the registration of the trademarks and domain names, including the disputed domain name, together with the creation of the placeholder website associated with the disputed domain name, which the Parties are agreed was created largely on the basis of natural language prompts to an AI-image generator. In circumstances where the Respondent’s trademarks, the disputed domain name, and related geo-targeted domain names are themselves alleged by the Complainant to be part of the cybersquatting scheme, their existence alone does not amount to demonstrable preparations to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services. Examples of prior use are assessed pragmatically in light of the case circumstances. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.2. Here, there is no other clear contemporaneous (dated or otherwise) evidence of bona fide pre-complaint preparations along the lines that the section indicates, noting also that the passage of time may be relevant in assessing whether purported demonstrable preparations are bona fide or pretextual. Turning first to the issue of the passage of time, the Panel notes the Respondent’s assertion that it had plans to create its said game and had been developing the relevant software “for several years” before it registered the corresponding trademarks and the disputed domain name. In a case where there is a clear timeline produced by the Complainant, and the question of pretext is all-important, the phrase “for several years” seems to the Panel to be deliberately and intentionally vague. Nevertheless, if accepted for present purposes, this would place the commencement of the Respondent’s development project as early as at least May 2022 (assuming, conservatively, that “several years” means at least three years). This means that, by the date of filing of the Response in May 2026, the Respondent has been developing its project for around four years in total. Yet, crucially, the Respondent has nothing to show for this apart from a placeholder promotional website featuring what it does not deny are AI-generated visuals. Such visuals can today be created instantaneously by AI-tools such as that which the meta data shows has been used here. They are generated by the kind of natural language prompts that the Complainant demonstrates are quoted in the image names. This means that the website associated with the disputed domain name cannot constitute evidence of bona fide pre-complaint preparations as the circumstances suggest that it may be pretextual. The Respondent states that its use of AI imagery should not be determinative of whether it is preparing a bona fide offering of goods and services. However, where this is presented as the only concrete activity beyond the registration of two trademarks and several domain names, over a four year period, this suggests pretext rather than preparations to make a genuine offering of goods and services. The registration of the Respondent’s geo-targeted domain names does little to support the Respondent’s position in the absence of further evidence of the Respondent’s alleged business purpose. It cannot be overlooked that the Respondent says that its video game is entitled “Project Menace” but the Respondent does not explain why it chose to reverse these words in the disputed domain name and, what is more, did not use the word “Project” at all in the domains targeting the alleged specific release markets. This, too, is a factor that may suggest pretext. page 12 In an attempt to explain why there is nothing to show for its four years of alleged activity beyond such AI- generated content, the Respondent asserts that the Complainant’s disregard for the Respondent’s timelines in its cease and desist correspondence has involved the Respondent in redirecting significant resources towards securing and defending its intellectual property rights in the Russian Federation and Belarus, which has delayed “critical processes related to the game’s commercial release”. It does not elaborate or explain what these “critical processes” might be. In the absence of such, the Panel can see that the Respondent has sent two letters to the Complainant and employed a lawyer to send two others. It did so in March and April 2026, long after it asserts that it commenced its own project. There is no evidence before the Panel that would reasonably suggest that this activity would have delayed any processes to the extent that the Respondent would have nothing to show by way of evidence of its alleged bona fide project. On the contrary, the Respondent’s submission seems calculated to provide a reverse-engineered explanation for the fact that it has put forward almost no evidence in terms of preparations to make a bona fide offering of goods or services. Those preparations which it has evidenced, namely the registration of the trademarks, disputed domain name, and other domain names, remain consistent with the scenario of opportunistic and predatory behavior outlined by the Complainant. By contrast, the Complainant’s timeline and associated evidence amounts to a compelling case of its prominent public-facing business activity relating to the video game which it created titled “MENACE”, long predating those activities that the Respondent has evidenced in alleged furtherance of a bona fide business. The Complainant had commenced development of its said game by 2021, had achieved its German trademark priority date by November that year, had filed its European Union Trade Mark in May 2022, had filed an application for a United States trademark in June 2022, had received the registration of the European Union Trade Mark in October 2022, had announced the “MENACE” game at Gamescom in Germany in August 2023 and received corresponding media coverage, had featured in the PC Gaming Show Most Wanted showcase in both 2023 and 2024, had accumulated over 250,000 “wishlists” on Steam by September 2024, and had released its Dev Diary by December 2024 targeting a release date window of Fall 2025. All of this extensive and highly public activity predated the Respondent filing for its trademarks in May 2025, with its registrations proceeding to grant in June and July 2025. Thereafter, in September 2025, the Complainant released its public demo of MENACE. That activity is followed in the timeline by the Respondent registering the disputed domain name on October 7, 2025. The Complainant goes on to note that it released “MENACE” on February 5, 2026, and that the Steam chart of top releases shows the game in the top 12. At this point, the Respondent sent its initial cease and desist notices. After the Complainant issued a press release celebrating sales of over 250,000 copies of “MENACE” on April 1, 2026, the Respondent’s lawyer sent further cease and desist correspondence to the Complainant on April 3, 2026. This timeline, and notably the prominence of the Complainant’s pre-launch activities concerning its “MENACE” game, raises a reasonable inference that, rather than arising coincidentally, the Respondent’s registration of trademarks and of the disputed domain name are part of a cybersquatting scheme targeting the Complainant, as the Complainant alleges. The Panel observes that, while comparatively rare, it is not unknown for a scheme of that nature to be accompanied by registration of trademarks, often in a jurisdiction where rights are acquired on a “first to file” basis. The scenario will be explored in greater detail in the third element analysis, but for present purposes it suffices to note that this would not confer rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. A key point in the Respondent’s case is its assertion that the significance of the Complainant’s chronology is overstated because, in the Respondent’s eyes, it disregards the evidence of the Respondent’s independent business activities and trademark rights in its principal markets. As the discussion above indicates, however, the Respondent knows that its alleged independent business activities are the crux of the matter, yet it fails to produce any evidence of demonstrable preparations which it nonetheless alleges are in existence. For example, in its submissions, the Respondent mentions software development work it has allegedly carried out, namely code, game engine and gameplay mechanics, refers to its “own product”, and claims to have engaged its own development resources. It also asserts that it has made significant efforts, has invested financial and human resources in software development, and has financial records, game design documents, and internal correspondence that together demonstrate a real project in active development. Yet it produces not a shred of this alleged material in its evidence. While the Respondent explains the limited AI-generated page 13 content on its website as being preliminary promotional materials for an “early stage” project, it is difficult to reconcile this with the fact that the claimed project is already of some four years in duration. While the Respondent alleges that the documentary record of a genuine commercial project is being ignored and that “demonstrable preparations to use” requires preparatory acts, not publicly visible progress, it does not produce any such documentary record or any private progress of its project and merely claims without any foundation that “acts exist and are documented by the Respondent”. The Respondent also argues that the disputed domain name contains dictionary words and that the Complainant is attempting to use the Policy to monopolize the common English word “menace” across jurisdictions. However, merely registering a domain name comprised of a dictionary word or phrase would not by itself automatically confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent, and panels will consider the overall facts and circumstances of the case when assessing such arguments. As long as the disputed domain name is being used in a way that does not trade off the complainant’s trademark, and where there are no other indicia of cybersquatting, such use may support the respondent’s claim to a right or legitimate interest. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.10.1. Here, however, the Respondent’s apparent inability to provide anything more than extremely limited evidence to support its position that it has made demonstrable preparations to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services suggests pretext, and furthermore amounts to an indicium of cybersquatting, particularly when the Complainant’s timeline is factored into the equation. The Complainant calls into question the genuineness of the Respondent’s alleged project, in part, because the game uses English words in its name despite the claim that it is locally focused on Russian-speaking markets. The Respondent explains that this is the industry standard, providing examples of other regional game developers who do the same, namely Wargaming, 4A Games, Battlestate Games, and GSC Game World, which evidence the Panel accepts as far as it goes. One material inconsistency and inherent contradiction in the Respondent’s position, however, is the stated extent of its geographic ambitions for the alleged game. The Respondent simultaneously claims to have created a local language project, for which it requires only trademark protection in the two jurisdictions that are local to it, while also claiming commercial ambitions which extend beyond global markets, with future plans for international distribution. These two positions are somewhat difficult to reconcile without further explanation, and the Panel accepts the Complainant’s contention that a game developer with international ambitions would inevitably have encountered the Complainant’s trademark registrations, whether in the European Union or otherwise. In all of the above circumstances, the Panel does not accept the Respondent’s contention that it has made demonstrable preparations to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services before any notice of the dispute. Instead, it appears to the Panel in the circumstances of this case, and in the absence of suitable evidence to the contrary, that the registration of the Respondent’s trademarks and of the disputed domain name were more probably than not pretextual and obtained primarily to circumvent the Complainant’s assertion of its rights. This cannot confer rights and legitimate interests upon the Respondent within the meaning of the Policy. 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. Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out a list of non-exhaustive circumstances that may indicate that a domain name was registered and used in bad faith, but other circumstances may be relevant in assessing whether a respondent’s registration and use of a domain name is in bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.2.1. page 14 In the present case, the assessment of registration and use in bad faith largely follows the assessment in the preceding section, on the basis that where the Respondent’s project has been found to be pretextual rather than genuine on the balance of probabilities, and that there are indicia of cybersquatting present based upon the Complainant’s timeline, the disputed domain name cannot have been registered and used in good faith. It is clear from the timeline that the Complainant was engaged in prominent activity in the gaming industry in terms of its “MENACE” game and the related trademark, which would have come to the attention of a game development studio such as the Respondent. Following the Complainant’s initial activity, and the attendant publicity that it gained, the Respondent registered its two trademarks, followed by the disputed domain name. It generated an AI-image based website, and later issued cease and desist letters to the Complainant after the Complainant’s game was launched. Yet, when challenged, the Respondent was unable to produce any other materials regarding its purported business or “Project Menace” game that would support its case of alleged competing legitimate interests. As far as the Panel is concerned, and as indicated in the preceding section, in the absence of any such materials, the factual matrix describes on the balance of probabilities a scenario that is recognizable to the Panel whereby a respondent’s registration of trademarks along with a corresponding domain name is part of a cybersquatting scheme rather than the pursuit of legitimate business activities. In such a case, while a respondent might possess ex facie valid registered trademarks, these are typically not intended for any genuine commercial use, but rather to extract value from other rights holders and to lend apparent credibility to the scheme. The pattern is typically that one or more speculative trademark registrations (with or without domain name registrations) are generally followed by a claim against a rights holder based in a different jurisdiction, backed by the threat of infringement proceedings, often relying upon trademarks in jurisdictions with procedural features that allow rapid and easy deployment, particularly those where rights are acquired on a “first to file” basis. In this scenario, such actions are typically carried out by persons who have not engaged in any genuine business activity related to the registered mark but rather have formed an intent to block, threaten, or monetize the commercial activity of others. As noted above, the Respondent might have dispelled the notion that it is engaged in such a scheme by putting forward evidence to support its alleged business activities, which it claims in its submissions to have undertaken. That it could not or did not do so when challenged by the Complainant underscores the likelihood that the disputed domain name has been registered as part of this kind of activity. That could not, on any basis, be described as registration and use of the disputed domain name in good faith. There are two additional matters to deal with on this topic. First, the Respondent asserts that the Complainant’s conduct, as documented in the cease and desist letters, “reflects a pattern of aggressive enforcement against a legitimate rights holder operating in its home market”. This is misconceived and unsupported by the evidence. At the point when the Complainant received the cease and desist notices, it had done nothing apart from developing and launching its game, which it did in the public area to considerable interest and acclaim from the relevant public. It had conducted no enforcement activity by that time. On the contrary, it was the Respondent who began enforcement proceedings by threatening to issue trademark complaints to the gaming platform operators on which the Complainant’s game is found. The fact that the Respondent characterizes the Complainant’s position as “aggressive enforcement” in the context of the present record could hardly lend any credibility to its submissions as a whole. Secondly, in addition to its submissions regarding the timeline and the Respondent’s website, the Complainant submits that the registrant contact data associated with the disputed domain name supports an inference of registration and use in bad faith. The data includes the initial use of a proxy service, followed by disclosure of underlying data featuring two somewhat obscurely named and unexplained entities, an apparently incorrect country name of Costa Rica, and a Spanish telephone number, which the Complainant says supports the notion that the Respondent’s business is pretextual and that it has attempted to conceal its identity potentially to avoid liability under the Policy. For its part, the Respondent claims that no privacy or proxy services were used in this case. That submission is incorrect, as the registrant details were initially masked by the Registrar’s privacy service. As many cases under the Policy have noted, and as exemplified in WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.6, there can be legitimate reasons for the use of such services. Furthermore, the Complainant was aware, after the page 15 delivery of the Respondent’s cease and desist notice, that the joined Respondent Biggiko was at least claiming to be the operator of the website associated with the disputed domain name, and there does not appear to be any question of Biggiko having disguised its identity or contact details. Nevertheless, this does not entirely alleviate the Panel’s concerns regarding the registrant data. No explanation is given for the fact that the registrant’s country address is listed as being Costa Rica. The Panel could accept this as being merely inadvertent if it were not for other anomalies in the data. Importantly, the named holder of the disputed domain name, “Unocompania”, is claimed to be a legal entity in Georgia, yet the Respondent has provided neither any evidence of its history or constitution, nor Biggiko’s relationship to the entity, nor any explanation as to why Biggiko does not hold the registration itself. Despite being the holder of the disputed domain name, “Unocompania” has apparently relied upon Biggiko to answer the Complaint for it. Furthermore, the Respondent asserts that the Spanish telephone number belongs to its remotely operating representative, but as with its relationship to “Unocompania”, no evidence is provided as to who this person is, their alleged role in the Respondent’s team, or their alleged connection to “Unocompania”, if any. In short, the issues surrounding the registrant contact details and the lack of explanation or provision of adequate evidence of the relationships here echo the lack of evidence of bona fide business activities on the Respondent’s part despite the fact that it has been challenged on each of these topics. The contact details are, in the circumstances of this case, suggestive of the fact that an organization or collective may be at work that is not necessarily engaged in bona fide operations at least as far as the disputed domain name is concerned. This notion is again something that the Respondent could easily have dispelled by the provision of suitable evidence, but it chose instead merely to assert that there is no legal requirement for all contact details to correspond to a single jurisdiction. In all of the above circumstances, the Panel has reached the view that the disputed domain name was registered and has been used in bad faith. The Panel finds that the Complainant has established the third element 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 <menaceproject.com> be transferred to the first Complainant, Overhype Studios GmbH. /Andrew D. S. Lothian/ Andrew D. S. Lothian Sole Panelist Date: June 4, 2026

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