Geo-guessr.io

The timeline behind geo-guessr.io

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 GeoGuessr AB v. Fu Chaoren Case No. DIO2026-0032 1. The Parties The Complainant is GeoGuessr AB, Sweden, represented by Zacco Sweden AB, Sweden. The Respondent is Fu Chaoren, China. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <geo-guessr.io> is registered with Spaceship, Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 8, 2026. On July 9, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On July 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 (Withheld for Privacy ehf) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on July 10, 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 an amendment to the Complaint on July 10, 2026. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the .IO Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”), the Rules for .IO Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for .IO 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 16, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was August 5, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on August 7, 2026. page 2 The Center appointed Bradley A. Slutsky as the sole panelist in this matter on August 17, 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 Complainant is a Swedish company, founded in 2013 in Stockholm, Sweden. The Complainant provides an online geography game in which players are “dropped” anywhere in the world with the mission to find clues and guess their location. The Complainant asserts that over 100 million people play its game in over 140 countries, and that it hosts an annual “World Championship” with players from around the globe and prize money, in 2025, of USD 50,000. The Complainant has registered a number of trademarks for GEOGUESSR, including the following: Mark Jurisdiction Reg. No. Reg. Date Int’l Class(es) Goods / Services Sweden 518045 March 21, 2014 9, 41 Downloadable computer game programs; Electronic game services provided from a computerized database or via the Internet GeoGuessr European Union 018485909 September 30, 2021 9, 16, 25, 28, 41 Games software, etc.; Maps, travel guides, etc.; Games, etc.; entertainment services, etc. GeoGuessr International (designating Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, India, Indonesia, Israel, Japan, Republic of Korea, Mexico, New Zealand, Norway, Russian Federation, Serbia, Switzerland, Thailand, Türkiye, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States of America, and Viet Nam) 1629478 July 9, 2021 9, 16, 25, 28, 41 Games software, etc.; Maps, travel guides, etc.; Clothing, etc.; games, etc.; Entertainment services, etc. page 3 The disputed domain name was registered on July 3, 2025. According to the Complaint and the annexes to the Complaint, the disputed domain name resolved to a website headed “GeoGuessr Free”, displaying the Complainant’s trademark and logotype, to promote a variety of competing products and services that are not related to the Complainant. The Respondent is also using media that the Complainant asserts are protected by its copyright, and the website has a copyright note “© 2025 GeoGuessr Free” but provides no genuine information about the Respondent, and there is no disclaimer that accurately and prominently discloses the Respondent’s relationship with the Complainant. The Complainant sent the Respondent a cease-and-desist letter on June 1, 2026. According to the Complainant, the Respondent did not respond to the letter. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks, and that the addition of a hyphen and the .io country-code Top-Level Domain (“ccTLD”) do not affect this determination. The Complainant further asserts that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, in that the Respondent has no license or authorization to use the GEOGUESSR trademark, the Respondent is not trading under the “Geoguessr” name and does not have any other rights to the name, the Respondent is not an authorized representative of the Complainant’s products or services and has never had a business relationship with the Complainant, the Respondent is not using the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, the Respondent chose the disputed domain name based on the Complainant’s trademark and is using the disputed domain name to host a commercial website, the Respondent is using the Complainant’s trademark and logotype across the Respondent’s website to promote competing products and services, the Respondent is using media that infringes the Complainant’s copyright, and, based on the foregoing, “the Respondent is actively attempting to create the false impression that the Domain Name and Website are somehow connected to, sponsored, or operated by the Complainant” and the Respondent “is, for financial gain, attempting to unfairly capitalize on the reputation and goodwill of the Complainant and the Complainant’s trademark”. Finally, the Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name was registered or is being used in bad faith, in that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name more than a decade after the Complainant initially registered the GEOGUESSR trademark, the Respondent was aware of the Complainant at the time of registration and was motivated by the Complainant’s trademark to register the disputed domain name, the Respondent appropriated elements of the Complainant’s website into the Respondent’s website, the Complainant sent the Respondent a cease-and-desist letter on June 1, 2026 and the Respondent did not respond to the letter, and “the Respondent, by registering and using the Domain Name, has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, internet users to its own website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent’s website”. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Pursuant to paragraph 15(a) of the Rules, a panel in ioDRP proceedings “shall decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable”. Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove the following: page 4 (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and (ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and (iii) the disputed domain name has been registered or is being used in bad faith. Although the Policy is very similar to the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (“UDRP”) in many respects, it is notable that under the Policy the third element of the Complainant’s proof requires a showing of registration “or” use in bad faith, whereas under the UDRP the third element of the Complainant’s proof requires a showing of registration “and” use in bad faith. Nevertheless, in light of the substantial similarities between the Policy and the UDRP, the Panel will refer to UDRP precedents and the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Select UDRP Questions (“WIPO Overview 3.1”) when relevant. See Alibaba Group Holding Limited v. Rajeev Singh, WIPO Case No. DIO2026-0011 (“Noting the substantive similarities between the Policy and the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (‘UDRP’), the Panel has referred to prior UDRP cases and the WIPO Overview 3.1, where appropriate”). 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 Complainant’s mark is reproduced within the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name consists of the Complainant’s entire GEOGUESSR mark, with a hyphen between GEO and GUESSR, and the “.io” ccTLD at the end. “The addition of the hyphen does not in any manner eliminate confusion.” Rolls-Royce plc v. John Holt, WIPO Case No. D2017-1842. Further, the “.io” ccTLD “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. Accordingly, the Panel finds the first element of the Policy has been established. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides the following list of circumstances in which a respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name: “Any of the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be proved based on its evaluation of all evidence presented, shall demonstrate [Respondent’s] rights or legitimate interests to the domain name for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii): (i) before any notice to [the Respondent] of the dispute, [the Respondent’s] use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the [disputed] domain name or a name corresponding to the [disputed] domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or (ii) [the Respondent] (as an individual, business, or other organization) [has] been commonly known by the [disputed] domain name, even if [the Respondent has] acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or page 5 (iii) [the Respondent is] making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the [disputed] domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.” Although the overall burden of proof in Policy 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 finds the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. 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. There is no evidence that the Respondent has used or prepared to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, has been commonly known by the disputed domain name, or is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. In addition, the Complainant alleges, and the Respondent has not rebutted, that the Respondent has no license or authorization to use the GEOGUESSR trademark; the Respondent is not trading under the “geoguessr” name and has no other rights in that name; the Respondent is not an authorized representative of the Complainant’s products or services and has never had a business relationship with the Complainant; the Respondent is not using the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; the Respondent chose the disputed domain name based on the Complainant’s trademark and is using the disputed domain name to host a commercial website; the Respondent is using the Complainant’s trademark and logotype throughout the website to promote competing products and services; and the Respondent is using media that infringes the Complainant’s copyright. The Complainant further contends that, based on the foregoing, “the Respondent is actively attempting to create the false impression that the Domain Name and Website are somehow connected to, sponsored, or operated by the Complainant” and that the Respondent “is, for financial gain, attempting to unfairly capitalize on the reputation and goodwill of the Complainant and the Complainant’s trademark”. Previous panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity (e.g., copycat sites, passing off, or other types of fraud) can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.13. In the light of the above, the Panel finds that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. See WIPO Overview 3.1, sections 2.5. and 2.13; Philip Morris Products S.A. v. Name Redacted, WIPO Case No. D2019-3122; Aktiebolaget Electrolux v. Erhan Kamak, WIPO Case No. D2014-1790. Accordingly, the Panel finds the second element of the Policy has been established. C. Registered or Used in Bad Faith Pursuant to paragraph 4(b) of the Policy, “the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith: page 6 (i) circumstances indicating that [the Respondent has] registered or [the Respondent has] acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of [the Respondent’s] documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or (ii) [the Respondent has] registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that [the Respondent has] engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or (iii) [the Respondent has] registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or (iv) by using the domain name, [the Respondent has] intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [the Respondent’s] web site or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of [the Respondent’s] website or location or of a product or service on [the Respondent’s] website or location”. 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. In the present case, the Panel notes that, more than ten years after the Complainant’s first use of its marks, the Respondent registered the disputed domain name and, without a license or authorization from the Complainant, created a website that uses the Complainant’s mark, logotype, and copyrighted media. These facts indicate that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant and its mark when registering the disputed domain name and is intentionally attempting to attract Internet users to the Respondent’s website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark. The Complainant further alleges that the Respondent’s website is a commercial website, and the Respondent has not disputed this allegation. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent has engaged in bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name pursuant to paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. See The Aldo Group Inc. v. Xinyue Tao, WIPO Case No. D2019-1720; WIPO Overview 3.1, sections 3.1.1 and 3.1.4. In addition, the Complainant sent the Respondent a cease-and-desist letter on June 1, 2026, to which the Respondent purportedly did not respond. “[T]he failure of a respondent to respond to a cease-and-desist letter, or a similar attempt at contact, has been considered relevant in a finding of bad faith.” LEGO Juris A/S v. Colin Heggie, WIPO Case No. D2011-1304. Accordingly, 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, <geo-guessr.io>, be transferred to the Complainant. /Bradley A. Slutsky/ Bradley A. Slutsky Sole Panelist Date: August 31, 2026

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