Octordle.org

The timeline behind octordle.org

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 Merriam-Webster, Incorporated v. Irina Sokolova Claim Number: FA2603002212974 PARTIES Complainant is Merriam-Webster, Incorporated ("Complainant"), represented by Aric S. Jacover of Jacover Law LLC, Illinois, USA. Respondent is Irina Sokolova ("Respondent"), Unknown. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <octordle.org>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC. 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. Richard Hill as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on March 29, 2026; Forum received payment on March 29, 2026. On March 30, 2026, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <octordle.org> domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GoDaddy.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, LLC 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 March 31, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of April 20, 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@octordle.org. Also on March 31, 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 April 21, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Richard Hill 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 states that it is the globally renowned publisher of the Merriam-Webster dictionary and related reference materials, trusted by users worldwide for over a century. Complainant's current offerings include a diverse collection of online games and quizzes, available at <www.merriam-webster.com/games>. Among these is the popular browser-based word game "Octordle," available at <www.octordle.com> (which redirects to <www.britannica.com/games/octordle>). The domain name <octordle.com> was registered on February 8, 2022 and the original "Octordle" online game was first published on February 9, 2022. Complainant subsequently acquired all rights in the OCTORDLE game, including the website, domain, and all related trademarks. While the original domain <octordle.com> now redirects to Complainant's main games website, Octordle has been and remains available in substantially the same form as originally published. Following its acquisition of Octordle, Complainant filed and secured registration of the OCTORDLE trademark in multiple jurisdictions, including the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. Complainant asserts rights in the mark OCTORDLE through its registration in the United States in 2024 (filing date December 14, 2022). It also asserts common law rights in the mark. Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its OCTORDLE mark because it incorporates the mark in its entirety, merely adding the ".org" generic top-level domain ("gTLD"). According to Complainant, Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor has Complainant authorized or licensed Respondent to use its mark. Respondent does not use the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services, or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, the disputed domain name resolves to a website comprising a playable version of Octordle that is essentially identical to Complainant's version. The website contains numerous uses of Complainant's registered OCTORDLE mark in its entirety and without any additional wording. Indeed, Respondent refers to the game simply as "Octordle" throughout the website and documentation. Respondent even uses the same green and yellow color scheme as Complainant's Octordle game. Further, says Complainant, Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. The resolving website impersonates Complainant. Respondent engaged in opportunistic bad faith registration. Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual or constructive knowledge of Complainant's rights in the OCTORDLE mark. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant has rights in the mark OCTORDLE predating the registration of the disputed domain name, and uses it to market an online game. The disputed domain name was registered on February 25, 2022. Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark. The disputed domain name is used to impersonate Complainant. The WHOIS information is false 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 3.1 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 asserts common law rights in its OCTORDLE mark. Common law rights are sufficient to establish rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Artistic Pursuit LLC v. calcuttawebdevelopers.com, FA 894477 (Forum Mar. 8, 2007) (finding that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) does not require a trademark registration if a complainant can establish common law rights in its mark). Common law rights may be established through evidence of secondary meaning in the mark such as longstanding use, evidence of an identical domain name, media recognition, and promotional material and advertising. See Marquette Golf Club v. Al Perkins, 1738263 (Forum July, 27, 2017) (finding that Complainant had established its common law rights in the MARQUETTE GOLF CLUB mark with evidence of secondary meaning, including "longstanding use; evidence of holding an identical domain name; media recognition; and promotional material/advertising."). Here, Complainant registered the domain name <octordle.com> on February 8, 2022, and used it to market and to provide its online game well before the registration of the disputed domain name. Further, Complainant used its OCTORDLE mark in various promotional and advertising materials. Therefore, the Panel finds that Complainant established common law rights in its OCTORDLE mark, with rights predating the first registration of the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant's OCTORDLE mark in its entirety and merely adds the ".org" generic top-level domain ("gTLD"). This does not distinguish the disputed domain name from the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Dell Inc. v. Protection of Private Person, FA 1681432 (Forum Aug. 1, 2016) ("A TLD (whether a gTLD, sTLD or ccTLD) is disregarded under a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis because domain name syntax requires TLDs"); see also Abbott Labs v. Whois Svc., FA 1254682 (Forum May 14, 2009) ("the addition of a gTLD is irrelevant in distinguishing a disputed domain name from a registered mark"); see also Twitter, Inc. v. Jie, FA 1919786 (Forum Dec. 9, 2020) ("The Panel considers the disputed domain name [<twitter.luxe>] to be identical to Complainant's registered [TWITTER] trademark"). Thus the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is identical to Complainant's mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Rights or Legitimate Interests Respondent is not licensed or otherwise authorized to use Complainant's mark and is not commonly known by the disputed domain name: under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), WHOIS information may be used to determine whether a respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. 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)). Here, the WHOIS information for the disputed domain name lists the registrant as "Irina Sokolova". Thus the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). The resolving website impersonates Complainant. This does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See Edible Communities v. Thoreau, FA 1158554 (Forum Apr. 16, 2008) ("[R]espondent's use of the disputed domain name [<theedibleaustin.com>] to pass itself off as [c]omplainant shows that [r]espondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) as well as Policy ¶4(c)(iii)."); see also Digg v. Digg , FA 1220833 (Forum Oct. 9, 2008) (finding no legitimate interest in respondent's use of the domain name <digg-inc.com> because "[r]espondent is attempting to pass itself off as [c]omplainant" and such "actions do not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶4(c)(iii)."); see also LF, LLC v. Kas Is / cas issen, FA 1958712 (Forum Sep. 9, 2021) ("Complainant has made out a prima facie case" where "Respondent's websites pretend to be a blog offering information on how to access Complainant's employee portal website, but the real purpose of the websites is to divert traffic from Complainant's legitimate <myloweslife.com> site through passing off."). Thus the Panel finds that Respondent fails to use the disputed domain name to make a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). And the Panel finds that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Registration and Use in Bad Faith The WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition ("WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0") states under 3.8.2: As an exception to the general proposition described above in 3.8.1 [where a respondent registers a domain name before the complainant's trademark rights accrue, panels will not normally find bad faith on the part of the respondent], in certain limited circumstances where the facts of the case establish that the respondent's intent in registering the domain name was to unfairly capitalize on the complainant's nascent (typically as yet unregistered) trademark rights, panels have been prepared to find that the respondent has acted in bad faith. Such scenarios include registration of a domain name: (i) shortly before or after announcement of a corporate merger, (ii) further to the respondent's insider knowledge (e.g., a former employee), (iii) further to significant media attention (e.g., in connection with a product launch or prominent event), or (iv) following the complainant's filing of a trademark application. Here, the record shows that the disputed domain name was registered after Complainant's launch of its online game. Thus, even if Complainant's trademark rights did not predate the registration of the disputed domain name – which they do – the Panel would find bad faith registration. See also the discussion of opportunistic bad faith below. Respondent (who did not reply to Complainant's contentions) has not presented any plausible explanation for its use of Complainant's mark. In accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel shall draw such inferences from Respondent's failure to reply as it considers appropriate. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent did not have a legitimate use in mind when registering the disputed domain name. Indeed, as already noted, Respondent uses the disputed domain name to attempt to impersonate Complainant. This evinces bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See American International Group, Inc. v. Walter Busby d/b/a AIG Mergers and Acquisitions, FA 156251 (Forum May 30, 2003) (the resolving website gave every appearance of being associated or affiliated with Complainant's business); see also Mortgage Research Center LLC v. Russell Miranda, FA 993017 (Forum July 9, 2007) (Respondent is implying an affiliation with Complainant, and consumers seeking Complainant's products and services may become confused when encountering Respondent's website). Thus the Panel finds bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). Further, Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant's mark: the resolving website impersonates Complainant. While constructive notice is insufficient to demonstrate bad faith, actual knowledge of a complainant's rights in a mark prior to registration may be evidence of bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Custom Modular Direct LLC v. Custom Modular Homes Inc., FA 1140580 (Forum Apr. 8, 2008) ("There is no place for constructive notice under the Policy."); see also Orbitz Worldwide, LLC v. Domain Librarian, FA 1535826 (Forum Feb. 6, 2014) ("The Panel notes that although the UDRP does not recognize 'constructive notice' as sufficient grounds for finding Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) bad faith, the Panel here finds actual knowledge through the name used for the domain and the use made of it."); see also Univision Comm'cns Inc. v. Norte, FA 1000079 (Forum Aug. 16, 2007) (rejecting the respondent's contention that it did not register the disputed domain name in bad faith since the panel found that the respondent had knowledge of the complainant's rights in the UNIVISION mark when registering the disputed domain name). The Panel finds that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the mark prior to Respondent's registration of the disputed domain name and that this constitutes bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). In addition, the WHOIS information is: Registrant Name: Irina Sokolova Registrant Address1: Translation Failed Registrant City: Translation Failed Registrant State/Province: N/A Registrant Postal Code: N/A Registrant Phone: +7.9990098217 According to paragraph 4.8 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition ("WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.1"), a Panel may conduct limited factual research regarding disputed domain names: Noting in particular the general powers of a panel articulated inter alia in paragraphs 10 and 12 of the UDRP Rules, it has been accepted that a panel may undertake limited factual research into matters of public record if it would consider such information useful to assessing the case merits and reaching a decision, in particular to affirm or corroborate a party's contention. This may include visiting the website linked to the disputed domain name in order to obtain more information about the respondent or its use of the domain name, consulting historical resources such as the Internet Archive (www.archive.org) in order to obtain an indication of how a domain name may have been used in the relevant past, reviewing dictionaries or encyclopedias (e.g., Wikipedia), or accessing trademark registration databases. It is obvious that "Translation Failed, Translation Failed, N/A, N/A" is not a valid address. Thus the Panel finds that that WHOIS information is false. This can indicate bad faith registration and use. See Enterprise Holdings, Inc. v. John Doe, FA 1339545 (Forum Sept. 29, 2010) ("The Panel also takes into account that the entity that Responded to the Complaint would not be the registrant of the disputed domain names for the instant proceedings. Therefore, that circumstance is also taken by the Panel as indication of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) by providing false or misleading WHOIS information to the registrar."); see also Video Direct Distribs. Inc. v. Video Direct, Inc., FA 94724 (Forum June 5, 2000) (finding that the respondent acted in bad faith by providing incorrect information to the registrar regarding the owner of the registered name). Accordingly, the Panel finds bad faith registration and use on this ground also. Finally, on the balance of the evidence before it, the Panel finds that Respondent registered the disputed domain name opportunistically, because it registered the disputed domain name shortly after the public announcement of Complainant's Octordle game. This constitutes bad faith registration and use. See GridPoint, Inc. v. Matt Giovanini, FA 1909399 (Forum Oct. 5, 2020) ("Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii), opportunistic bad faith may be demonstrated by a Respondent registering a disputed domain name that integrates a distinct or famous mark, around the time of a certain event that creates interest or value in the disputed domain name."); see also Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. harshit dhingaun, FA 1619696 (Forum June 10, 2015) ("Respondent registered the contested domain names within days after the announcement of Complainant's sponsorship of India Fashion Week, thus demonstrating opportunistic bad faith in the registration and subsequent use of the domains."). Thus the Panel finds bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) on this ground also. 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 <octordle.org> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Richard Hill, Panelist Dated: April 21, 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.