Epicgames.co

The timeline behind epicgames.co

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.

DECISION Epic Games, Inc. v. Name Management Group / Nanci Nette Claim Number: FA2508002170237 PARTIES Complainant is Epic Games, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Christopher M. Thomas of Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein LLP, North Carolina, USA. Respondent is Name Management Group / Nanci Nette ("Respondent"), California, USA. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <epicgames.co>, registered with Dynadot Inc. PANEL The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding. Paul M. DeCicco, as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on August 7, 2025; Forum received payment on August 7, 2025. On August 8, 2025, Dynadot Inc confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <epicgames.co> domain name is registered with Dynadot Inc and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Dynadot Inc has verified that Respondent is bound by the Dynadot 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 August 8, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 28, 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@epicgames.co. Also on August 8, 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 August 29, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Paul M. DeCicco 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 contends in part as follows: Complainant Epic Games, founded in 1991 and based in Cary, North Carolina, is a creator, developer, and publisher of video games, a game engine, and content-creation software. Over 800 million accounts with more than 6 billion friend connections have been created across Complainant's video games, digital storefront, and online services. Complainant owns many trademark registrations for EPIC, EPIC GAMES, and other EPIC GAMES-formative marks in the United States and throughout the world. Complainant also owns extensive common law rights in these marks. Indeed, Epic Games has been using its EPIC GAMES mark widely and continuously in commerce since at least as early as 1999. Complainant has owned and used the domain <epicgames.com> since at least as early as January 5, 1995. Respondent's domain name <epicgames.co> is used variously to: (a) display a parked webpage consisting of pay-per-click hyperlinks to products and services that compete with or are unrelated to Epic Games; (b) redirect to a location, from which Respondent passes itself off as Complainant and displays a message prompting consumers to download a browser extension that is likely malware; and redirect to various third party webpages for products and services that compete with or are unrelated to Complainant. The at-issue domain name is identical to Complainant's registered marks under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. Complainant's U.S. trademark registrations for the marks EPIC and EPIC GAMES are sufficient to establish Complainant's rights in the marks under Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. The at-issue domain name differs from Complainant's marks by only: (1) omitting the space between EPIC and GAMES; and (2) adding the country code Top Level Domain ("ccTLD") extension <.co>. These immaterial differences do not diminish the confusing similarity between Complainant's registered mark and the domain name. Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use any of its trademarks, including EPIC GAMES, in any manner whatsoever. Moreover, Respondent is not in any way connected to, sponsored by, or affiliated with Complainant. Therefore, Respondent cannot use Complainant's unique marks EPIC and EPIC GAMES, which Complainant has used for almost three decades, for any bona fide offering of goods and services. Respondent has not used the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, and has not made a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name. Specifically, the domain name sometimes resolves to a parked webpage that contains only sponsored links. Such use of the at-issue domain name does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). Respondent's name does not resemble the domain name and Respondent has not been commonly known by the domain name therefore does not have any rights or legitimate interests in it. Respondent registered and is using the domain name in bad faith under paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy. Respondent's use of the domain name to resolve to a webpage displaying third party hyperlinks is indicative of bad faith. Likewise, Respondent's use of the domain name to pass itself off as Complainant and prompt consumers to download a browser extension that is likely malware is also proof that Respondent registered and is using the domain name in bad faith under Policy 4(b)(iii) and (iv). Further, in view of the publicity that Epic Games has received over the past 25 years – and the fact that Respondent uses the domain name to pass itself off as Complainant – it is inconceivable that Respondent registered and is using the domain name without knowledge of Complainant and its EPIC GAMES mark. This too supports a finding that Respondent registered and is using the domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). Lastly, when any use of a domain name would cause consumer confusion, the Panel has found bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant has rights in the EPIC GAMES trademark. Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant and had not been authorized to use Complainant's trademark in any capacity. Respondent registered the at-issue domain name after Complainant acquired rights in the EPIC GAMES trademark. Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to direct internet users to a webpages that display third-party links or to a webpage that facilitates the users' downloading a browser extension that is likely malware. 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 The at-issue domain is confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights. Any of Complainant's worldwide trademark registrations for EPIC GAMES, including registrations with the USPTO, is sufficient to established Complainant's 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). Respondent's <epicgames.co> domain name consists of a Complainant's entire EPIC GAMES trademark less its domain name impermissible space, followed by the ".co" top-level domain name. The slight differences between Complainant's trademark and the at-issue domain name do not distinguish the domain name from Complainant's mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent's <epicgames.co> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's EPIC GAMES trademark. See Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) ("Where a relevant trademark is recognizable 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."). Rights or Legitimate Interests Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must first make out a prima facie case showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of an at-issue domain name and then the burden, in effect, shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm't Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006). Since Respondent failed to respond, absent evidence of Policy ¶ 4(c) circumstances Complainant's prima facie showing acts conclusively. Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant's trademark in any capacity and, as discussed below, there are no Policy ¶ 4(c) circumstances from which the Panel might find that Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in respect of the at-issue domain name. See Emerson Electric Co. v. golden humble / golden globals, FA 1787128 (Forum June 11, 2018) ("lack of evidence in the record to indicate a respondent is authorized to use [the] complainant's mark may support a finding that [the] respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)"). The WHOIS information for <epicgames.co> indicates that "Name Management Group / Nanci Nette " is the domain name's registrant and there is nothing in the record showing that Respondent is otherwise known by the <epicgames.co> domain name. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Coppertown Drive-Thru Sys., LLC v. Snowden, FA 715089 (Forum July 17, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <coppertown.com> domain name where there was no evidence in the record, including the WHOIS information, suggesting that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain name). Respondent uses <epicgames.co> to address a webpage which has at times hosted hyperlinks to third parties and which has at times facilitated the downloading of malware. Such use of the domain name is not indicative of a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor of a non-commercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Danbyg Ejendomme A/S v. lb Hansen / guerciotti, FA 1613867 (Forum June 2, 2015) (finding that the respondent had failed to provide a bona fide offering of goods or services, or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name where the disputed domain name resolved to a website that offered both competing hyperlinks and hyperlinks unrelated to the complainant's business); see also, Ceridian Corp. v. Versata Software, Inc., FA 1259927 (Forum June 23, 2009) (finding that a respondent's use of a disputed domain name to direct Internet users to a website which attempts to download computer viruses "failed to create any semblance of a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)"). Given the forgoing, Respondent lacks rights and lacks legitimate interests in respect of the at-issue domain name. Registration and Use in Bad Faith As discussed below without being exhaustive, Respondent acted in bad faith. As mentioned above regarding rights and legitimate interests, Respondent has used the at-issue domain name to direct internet users to a webpage displaying hyperlinks to third-parties. The links presumably compensate Respondent under a pay-per-click arrangement or otherwise benefit Respondent. Respondent's use of the domain name in this manner is thus disruptive to Complainant's business and capitalizes on the confusion that Respondent created between the domain name and Complainant's trademark. Respondent's use of <epicgames.co> shows Respondent's bad faith registration and use pursuant to the Policy. See Plain Green, LLC v. wenqiang tang, FA 1621656 (Forum July 1, 2015) (finding that the respondent's use of the disputed domain name to feature generic third-party hyperlinks constituted bad faith according to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)); see also, Enterprise Rent-A-Car Company v. Kentech Company LTD, FA 406522 (Forum Mar. 4, 2005) ("[T]he Panel infers that Respondent receives click- through fees for diverting Internet users to competing car rental services. Since Respondent is using a domain name that is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark, consumers searching for Complainant online who access Respondent's domain name may become confused as to Complainant's affiliation with the resulting website. Thus, the Panel finds that Respondent's commercial use of the <carenterprise.com> constitutes bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)."). Additionally, at times browsing to the domain name may result in internet consumers being prompted to download a browser extension that is likely malware. This use of the domain name likewise demonstrates Respondent's bad faith registration and use of <epicgames.co>. See eNom, Incorporated v. Muhammad Enoms General delivery / Enoms.com, FA 1621663 (Forum July 2, 2015) ("In addition, Respondent has used the disputed domain name to install malware on Internet users' devices. The Panel finds that this is bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)."). Moreover, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in EPIC GAMES when it registered <epicgames.co> as a domain name. Respondent's prior knowledge of Complainant's trademark is evident from the mark's notoriety and from Respondent's attempt to pass itself off as Complainant's via the <epicgames.co> domain name. Respondent's registration and use of the confusingly similar <epicgames.co> domain name with knowledge of Complainant's trademark rights in EPIC GAMES further shows Respondent's bad faith. See Lemon Inc. v. Sumer Singh, FA 2110519 (Forum Sept. 5, 2024 ("registration of a disputed domain name with actual knowledge of another's trademark rights is sufficient to establish bad faith, and can be shown by the notoriety of the mark and the use the Respondent makes of the disputed domain name"); see also, Minicards Vennootschap Onder FIrma Amsterdam v. Moscow Studios, FA 1031703 (Forum Sept. 5, 2007) (holding that respondent registered a domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) after concluding that respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's mark when registering the disputed domain name). 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 <epicgames.co> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist Dated: August 29, 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.