Hillclimb-racing.com

The timeline behind hillclimb-racing.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.

NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM DECISION Hill Climb Racing Oy v. SHINJIRU INTERNATIONAL INC. Claim Number: FA2501002133708 PARTIES Complainant is Hill Climb Racing Oy ("Complainant"), represented by Tomi Petteri Simula of Hill Climb Racing Oy, FINLAND. Respondent is SHINJIRU INTERNATIONAL INC. ("Respondent"), Malaysia. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <hillclimb-racing.com> ("Domain Name"), registered with Name.com, Inc. PANEL The undersigned certifies that they have acted independently and impartially and to the best of their knowledge have no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding. Nicholas J.T. Smith as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on January 7, 2025; Forum received payment on January 7, 2025. On January 7, 2025, Name.com, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <hillclimb-racing.com> domain name is registered with Name.com, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Name.com, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Name.com, Inc. registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN's Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy"). On January 7, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of January 27, 2025 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@hillclimb-racing.com. Also on January 7, 2025, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the e-mail addresses served and the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to Respondent via post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts. Having received no response from Respondent, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default. On January 28, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Nicholas J.T. Smith as Panelist. Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") "to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent" through submission of Electronic and Written Notices, as defined in Rule 1 and Rule 2. Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent. RELIEF SOUGHT Complainant requests that the Domain Name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant Complainant is a producer of video and mobile games and since 2012 has produced the popular HILL CLIMB RACING video game series, which has received over 2 billion downloads. Complainant has rights in the HILL CLIMB RACING mark through various trademark registrations, including with the European Union Intellectual Property Office ("EUIPO") (e.g., Reg. No. 012822912, registered March 10, 2015). Complainant also promotes its HILL CLIMB RACING product from the website operated by its licensee ("Complainant's Website") which contain various images of Complainant's HILL CLIMB RACING game. Respondent's <hillclimb-racing.com> domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the HILL CLIMB RACING mark as it includes the entire mark with the addition of a generic top-level domain ("gTLD"). Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the <hillclimb-racing.com> domain name since Respondent is not licensed or authorized to use Complainant's HILL CLIMB RACING mark and is not commonly known by the Domain Name. Additionally, Respondent does not use Domain Name for any bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Rather, the Domain Name resolves to a website ("Respondent's Website") where Respondent passes off as Complainant to offer what appears to be near identical copy of Complainant's game, including material copied from the Complainant's Website that competes with Complainant. Respondent registered and uses the <hillclimb-racing.com> domain name in bad faith by mimicking Complainant's video game to capitalize on consumer confusion. Respondent also had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the HILL CLIMB RACING mark evidenced by the use of material on the Respondent's Website taken from the Complainant's Website. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant holds trademark rights for the HILL CLIMB RACING mark. The Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant's HILL CLIMB RACING mark. Complainant has established that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name and that Respondent registered and has used the Domain Name in bad faith. DISCUSSION Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "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." Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred: (1) the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and (2) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and (3) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. In view of Respondent's failure to submit a response, the Panel shall decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant's undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(f), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and draw such inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules. The Panel is entitled to accept all reasonable allegations set forth in a complaint; however, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory or unsubstantiated arguments. See WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 at ¶ 4.3; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) ("Because Complainant did not produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations [. . .] the Panel finds it appropriate to dismiss the Complaint"). Identical and/or Confusingly Similar Complainant has rights in the HILL CLIMB RACING mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through its registration of the mark with the EUIPO (e.g., Reg. No. 012822912, registered March 10, 2015). Registration with the USPTO can sufficiently establish rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Thermo Electron Corp. v. Xu, FA 713851 (Forum July 12, 2006) (finding that the complainants had established rights in marks where the marks were registered with a national trademark authority). The Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the HILL CLIMB RACING mark as it incorporates the entire HILL CLIMB RACING mark while adding a hyphen and the ".com" gTLD. Domain names which incorporate an entire mark are usually considered confusingly similar, while adding a hyphen and a gTLD is generally insufficient to create a distinction between a complainant's mark and a disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See ADP, LLC. v. Ella Magal, FA 1773958 (Forum Aug. 2, 2017) ("Respondent's <workforce-now.com> domain name appropriates the dominant portion of Complainant's ADP WORKFORCE NOW mark and adds a hyphen and the gTLD ".com." These changes do not sufficiently distinguish the disputed domain name from the ADP WORKFORCE NOW mark."); see also Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) ("Where a relevant trademark is recognisable within a disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element."). The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Rights or Legitimate Interests Complainant alleges that Respondent holds no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. In order for Complainant to succeed under this element, it must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the Domain Name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), and then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm't Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006) and AOL LLC v. Gerberg, FA 780200 (Forum Sept. 25, 2006) ("Complainant must first make a prima facie showing that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interest in the subject domain names, which burden is light. If Complainant satisfies its burden, then the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain names."). The Panel holds that Complainant has made out a prima facie case. Complainant asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name as Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name, nor has Complainant authorized Respondent to use the HILL CLIMB RACING mark. Respondent has no relationship, affiliation, connection, endorsement or association with Complainant. WHOIS information can help support a finding that a respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, especially where a privacy service has been engaged. See State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Dale Anderson, FA 1613011 (Forum May 21, 2015) (concluding that because the WHOIS record lists "Dale Anderson" as the registrant of the disputed domain name, the respondent was not commonly known by the <statefarmforum.com> domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)); see also Kohler Co. v. Privacy Service, FA 1621573 (Forum July 2, 2015) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) where "Privacy Service" was listed as the registrant of the disputed domain name). The WHOIS lists "SHINJIRU INTERNATIONAL INC." as registrant of record. Coupled with Complainant's unrebutted assertions as to absence of any affiliation or authorization between the parties, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name in accordance with Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). The Domain Name resolves to the Respondent's Website that passes off as an official website of the Complainant (through the reproduction of Complainant's trademark and images of Complainant's Hill Climb Racing game reproduced from Complainant's Website) for the purpose of offering a video game under the HILL CLIMB RACING mark in direct competition with Complainant's Hill Climb Racing game. The use of a confusingly similar domain name to resolve to a webpage that offers goods or services that compete with a complainant does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use; indeed it provides a false impression that the Respondent is affiliated with or authorized by Complainant. See Upwork Global Inc. v. Shoaib Malik, FA 1654759 (Forum Feb. 3, 2016) (finding that Complainant provides freelance talent services, and that Respondent competes with Complainant by promoting freelance talent services through the disputed domain's resolving webpage, which is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor is it a legitimate noncommercial or fair use). See also General Motors LLC v. MIKE LEE, FA 1659965 (Forum Mar. 10, 2016) (finding that "use of a domain to sell products and/or services that compete directly with a complainant's business does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)"). The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Registration and Use in Bad Faith The Panel finds that, at the time of registration of the Domain Name, February 21, 2019, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's HILL CLIMB RACING mark since the Respondent is impersonating the Complainant by reproducing the copyrighted material from the Complainant's Website to offer services in direct competition with Complainant's video game services. In the absence of rights or legitimate interests of its own this demonstrates registration in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). The Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the Domain Name in bad faith to create confusion with Complainant's HILL CLIMB RACING Mark for commercial gain by using the confusingly similar Domain Name to resolve to a website offering a video game in a manner that misleads consumers into thinking that Respondent, or the video game offered by the Respondent, is in some way connected to the Complainant. Using a confusingly similar domain name to trade upon the goodwill of a complainant can evince bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Citadel LLC and its related entity, KCG IP Holdings, LLC v. Joel Lespinasse / Radius Group, FA 1579141 (Forum Oct. 15, 2014) ("Here, the Panel finds evidence of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) bad faith as Respondent has used the confusingly similar domain name to promote its own financial management and consulting services in competition with Complainant."). The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). DECISION Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED. Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <hillclimb-racing.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Nicholas J.T. Smith, Panelist Dated: January 28, 2025 Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page. Click Here to return to our Home Page

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