Fortnitewin.com

The timeline behind fortnitewin.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 Epic Games, Inc. v. Jenry Adams / Relionation Claim Number: FA2601002198016 PARTIES Complainant is Epic Games, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Sloan L. E. Carpenter of Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein LLP, North Carolina, USA. Respondent is Jenry Adams / Relionation ("Respondent"), Slovenia. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <fortnitewin.com> ("Domain Name"), registered with NICENIC INTERNATIONAL GROUP CO., LIMITED. 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 5, 2026; Forum received payment on January 5, 2026. On January 6, 2026, NICENIC INTERNATIONAL GROUP CO., LIMITED confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <fortnitewin.com> domain name is registered with NICENIC INTERNATIONAL GROUP CO., LIMITED and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. NICENIC INTERNATIONAL GROUP CO., LIMITED has verified that Respondent is bound by the NICENIC INTERNATIONAL GROUP CO., LIMITED 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 9, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of January 29, 2026 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@fortnitewin.com. Also on January 9, 2026, 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 30, 2026, 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 creator, developer and publisher of video games, including the enormously popular FORTNITE game, first released in 2017, with over 500 million registered accounts. Complainant has rights in the FORTNITE mark through its registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") (e.g. Reg. No. 4,481,629, registered February 11, 2014). Respondent's <fortnitewin.com> domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant's mark as it wholly incorporates the FORTNITE mark and merely adds the generic or descriptive term "win" and the ".com" generic top-level-domain ("gTLD"). Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <fortnitewin.com> domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name, nor has Complainant authorized, licensed, or otherwise permitted Respondent to use the mark. Respondent also does not use the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Rather, Respondent uses the Domain Name for a website ("Respondent's Website") where, in breach of the Complainant's terms of service, offers unauthorized access to in-game currency in order to phish for the personal details of visitors to the Respondent's Website. Respondent registered and uses the <fortnitewin.com> domain name in bad faith. Respondent uses the Domain Name in order to access Complainant's customer account details in connection with a phishing scheme. Given the use of the Domain Name for this purpose Respondent had actual notice of Complainant's rights in the FORTNITE mark at the time of registration of the Domain Name. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant holds trademark rights for the FORTNITE mark. The Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant's FORTNITE mark. Complainant has established that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the use of 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 FORTNITE mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through its registration of the mark with the USPTO (Reg. No. 4,481,629, registered February 11, 2014). Registration of a mark with the USPTO is sufficient to establish rights in that mark. See Liberty Global Logistics, LLC v. damilola emmanuel / tovary services limited, FA 1738536 (Forum Aug. 4, 2017) ("Registration of a mark with the USPTO sufficiently establishes the required rights in the mark for purposes of the Policy."). The Panel finds that the <fortnitewin.com> Domain Name is confusingly similar to the FORTNITE mark as it wholly incorporates the FORTNITE mark and adds the word "win" and the ".com" gTLD. The addition of a generic term along with a gTLD to a wholly incorporated trade mark does not distinguish a disputed domain name from a mark. See Wiluna Holdings, LLC v. Edna Sherman, FA 1652781 (Forum Jan. 22, 2016) (finding the addition of a generic term and gTLD is insufficient to distinguish a disputed domain name from a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)). 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 FORTNITE 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 "Jenry Adams / Relionation" 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 is presently inactive but prior to the commencement of the proceeding resolved to a website that, in exchange for in-game currency (an unauthorized product associated with the Complainant's FORTNITE mark), invites users to provide their FORTNITE usernames and passwords, which if provided could potentially enable Respondent to log into their accounts with Complainant. Such conduct is best characterized as "phishing". Respondent's use of the Domain Name for the purpose of engaging in a phishing scheme to acquire personal and confidential information is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See Caterpillar Inc. v. ruth weinstein, FA 1770352 (Forum Mar. 7, 2018) ("Use of a disputed domain name in an attempt to pass itself off as a complainant and to conduct a phishing scheme is indicative of a failure to use said domain name in connection with a bona fide offer of goods and services per Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or otherwise fair use per Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)."); see also Epic Games, Inc. v. Oliver Wagner, FA 1887270 (Forum April 6, 2020) ("Respondent attempts to sell unauthorized accounts associated with Complainant's FORTNITE mark. Use of a disputed domain name to offer unauthorized products associated with a mark is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii)."). The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Registration and Use in Bad Faith The Panel finds that, at the time Respondent registered the Domain Name, July 14, 2025, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's FORTNITE mark. The Respondent used the Domain Name to pass itself off as Complainant for financial gain or to disrupt Complainant's business. 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 used the Domain Name in bad faith as Respondent used the Domain Name in furtherance of a phishing scheme (through the purported offering of unauthorized in-game currency). Use of a disputed domain name in furtherance of a phishing scheme is evidence of bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Google Inc. v. Domain Admin / Whois Privacy Corp., FA 1622862 (Forum Aug. 10, 2015) (finding that the respondent's apparent use of the disputed domain name in furtherance of a 'phishing' scheme further established its bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)); see also Zynga Inc. v. Mahesh Kumar / Zynga, FA 1846747 (Forum July 22, 2019) ("Diverting Internet users to a disputed domain name, likely for profit, can demonstrate bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). Here, Complainant has provided the Panel with screenshots of the resolving webpage of the disputed domain name which displays Complainant's mark and purportedly offers for sale unauthorized versions of Complainant's virtual products. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent engaged in bad faith registration and use per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and/or (iv)"). Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and used the Domain Name in bad faith pursuant to 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 <fortnitewin.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Nicholas J.T. Smith, Panelist Dated: January 31, 2026 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.