{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-106953", "time_of_filling": "2024-10-17 09:11:39", "domain_names": [ "runewild.com" ], "case_administrator": " Iveta Špiclová (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "Jagex Limited" ], "complainant_representative": "Tosshan Ramgolam (Stobbs IP)", "respondent": [ "Anonymized representative " ], "respondent_representative": "Anonymized Reprezentative respondent ", "factual_background": "

FACTS PROVIDED BY THE COMPLAINANT:<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Complainant was incorporated on 28 April 2000 and since then has carried on the business of designing, developing, publishing, and operating online video games and other electronic-based entertainment.<\/p>\n

The Complainant is well-known internationally for its Massively Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Games (“MMORPG”) RuneScape and Old School RuneScape (collectively, the “Games”). Together, the Games average a total of more than 3 million active users per month. Since October 2022 Old School RuneScape has been recognised by the Guinness World Records for being the largest free-to-play MMORPG with over 300 million accounts.<\/p>\n

The Complainant is the owner of the different trademarks RUNE®. In addition, the Complainant is the owner of different domain names including the term RUNE® such as <runescape.com>, <runefest.com>, <runescape.net> and <runeservice.com>.<\/p>\n

The disputed domain name <runewild.com> (hereinafter, the “Disputed Domain Name”) was registered on October 31st, 2017 and it offers a pirated version of the Complainant’s Old School RuneScape game.<\/p>\n

According to Complainant’s non-contested allegations, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in respect of the Disputed Domain Name and he is not related in any way to the Complainant’s business.<\/p>\n

For the purpose of this case, the Registrar confirmed that the Respondent is the current registrant of the Disputed Domain Name and that the language of the registration agreement is English.<\/p>\n

Respondent did not reply to the Complaint.<\/p>\n

NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.<\/p>", "other_legal_proceedings": "

The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings which are pending or decided and which relate to the Disputed Domain Name.<\/p>", "no_response_filed": "

Language of Proceeding<\/p>\n

The Complainant has requested that the language of proceedings shall be in English.<\/p>\n

First element: Similarity<\/p>\n

The Complainant confirms that the Disputed Domain Name <runewild.com> is confusingly similar to its trademarks RUNE® and RUNE formative marks.<\/p>\n

The Complainant states that the Disputed Domain Name includes the Complainant’s Trade Mark as the dominant element, along with the term ‘WILD’. The term ‘WILD’ is a common term used in the Complainant’s Games. The Respondent has also adopted the same naming structure for the Disputed Domain Name as is used in the Complainant’s RUNE-formative Trade Marks, such as RUNECOIN, RUNEMETRICS, RUNEFEST, and RUNEWIZARDS, as well as its use of RUNE-formative terms more broadly. The combination of ‘RUNE’ and ‘WILD’ does nothing to alter the impression generated by the Disputed Domain Name in the eyes of the average Internet user. As a user would associate the two terms ‘RUNE’ and ‘WILD’ separately and combined to indicate the domain originates from the Complainant.<\/p>\n

Based on the submissions above, the Complainant requests that the Panel agree that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s established Trade Marks.<\/p>\n

Second element: Rights or legitimate interest<\/p>\n

The Complainant contend that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name for the following reasons:<\/p>\n

The Complainant submits that the Respondent is using the Disputed Domain Name to resolve to a website offering a pirated version of the Complainant’s Old School RuneScape game. The creation and use of the pirated version of the game, constitutes a violation of the Complainant’s EULA and applicable copyright laws. The Complainant indicates that the use of a domain name for illegal activity (e.g., the sale of counterfeit goods or illegal pharmaceuticals, phishing, distributing malware, unauthorised account access\/hacking, impersonating\/passing off, or other types of fraud) can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent.<\/p>\n

Further and in addition to the above, the Respondent’s offering of a pirated version of the game unfairly competes with the Complainant’s Games, specifically in relation to online video games and entertainment services; services protected by the Trade Marks. The Complainant submits that the Respondent has chosen to use the RUNE brand and the RUNE-formative naming structure to create the Disputed Domain Name, in order to take advantage of the goodwill generated by the Complainant’s well-established and successful online video game business, without the Respondent having to incur its own advertising or branding expenditure. This cannot constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services.<\/p>\n

The Complainant submits that the Respondent has never legitimately been known as RUNE or RUNEWILD at any point in time.<\/p>\n

The Complainant submits that nothing about the Disputed Domain Name suggests that it is being used by the Respondent legitimately or for non-commercial and fair use. As mentioned above, the Disputed Domain Name has been set-up to take advantage of the Complainant’s significant goodwill and valuable reputation in order to promote a pirate copy of the official game for illegitimate financial gain, through purchases via their online store which directs users.<\/p>\n

In light of the comments submitted above, the Respondent does not satisfy any of the above-mentioned grounds under Policy, Paragraph 4(c).<\/p>\n

Third element: Bad faith<\/p>\n

The Complainant reiterates the submissions made above that the Trade Marks significantly pre-date the registration of the Disputed Domain Name and the Complainant enjoys a substantial reputation in the RUNE brand and associated RUNE-formative brands. Furthermore, it is clear that the Respondent was unequivocally aware of the RUNE, RUNESCAPE and RUNE-formative brands, given the Respondent’s deliberate impersonation of the Complainant’s RUNE brand, the RUNE-formative naming structure and the Complainant’s RuneScape and Old School RuneScape in-game assets and mechanics.<\/p>\n

The Complainant submits that the Respondent is free riding on the success of the RUNE and\/or RUNESCAPE brand including by use of the Complainant’s well-known in-game assets and promotional material, including but not limited to the following:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. The Disputed Domain Name is promoting a pirated copy of the Old School RuneScape game made available for download, the game is a direct copy of Old School RuneScape;<\/li>\n
  2. Use of promotional imagery relating to the Games;<\/li>\n
  3. Use of in-game icons, including the images shown on https:\/\/www.runewild.com\/highscores\/<\/a> (these icons are taken from Old School RuneScape https:\/\/secure.runescape.com\/m=hiscore_oldschool\/overall); and<\/li>\n
  4. Under ‘Featured Content’ and ‘Latest News’ on the Website’s homepage, the Respondent makes references to elements which feature in the Complainant’s Games such as: “Tombs of Amascut”; “Nex: The Ancient Prison”; “Voidwaker”; “Wilderness Bosses”; and “Phantom Muspah”.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    The Complainant submits that the only plausible explanation is the Respondent’s service impersonates the Complainant’s Games or otherwise intentionally uses the Complainant’s copyright-protected works and adopts confusingly similar names and assets, with a view to diverting traffic from the Complainant’s websites in order to promote a pirated copy of the Old School RuneScape game.<\/p>\n

    The Complainant submits that the Disputed Domain Name was registered with prior knowledge of the Complainant and their RUNE and RUNE-formative brands as evidenced by the substantial similarity of in-game assets, naming conventions, and art style, with a view to taking advantage of the attractive power of those brands to consumers of online video games.<\/p>\n

    The Complainant submits based on the Respondent’s use of the RUNE mark, RUNE-formative naming structure and RuneScape assets to sell similar and competing goods and services, the Respondent has actual knowledge of the Complainant’s rights in the RUNE brand at the time of registering the Disputed Domain Name, as evidenced above. Actual knowledge of a complainant’s rights in a mark prior to registering a confusingly similar domain name evinces bad faith under paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.<\/p>\n

    The Complainant further submits that the Respondent disrupts the Complainant’s business by diverting potential customers to the Website which offer similar and competing goods and services. Using a confusingly similar domain name in a manner disruptive of a complainant’s business by trading upon the goodwill of a Complainant for the commercial gain evinces bad faith under paragraph 4(b)(iii) and (v) of the Policy.<\/p>\n

    In view of the distinctive nature of the RUNE brand, the colossal scope of the Complainant’s business, and the substantial evidence of the Respondent copying\/impersonating the Complainant, the Complainant submits that the Respondent’s actual knowledge of the RUNE brand at the time of registration of the Disputed Domain Name is unequivocal, and there is no plausible reason why the Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name in question other than to target the Complainant and its RUNE Trade Marks.<\/p>\n

    Based on the submissions above, the Complainant maintains that the Disputed Domain Name was registered and used in bad faith. Consequently, all elements of the Policy are satisfied.<\/p>\n

    Based on the submissions above, the Complainant maintains that the Disputed Domain Name was registered and used in bad faith. Consequently, all elements of the Policy are satisfied.<\/p>\n

    RESPONDENT<\/p>\n

    Respondent did not reply to the Complaint.<\/p>", "rights": "

    The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy).<\/p>", "no_rights_or_legitimate_interests": "

    The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the Respondent to have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy).<\/p>", "bad_faith": "

    The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the Disputed Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy).<\/p>", "procedural_factors": "

      \n
    • <\/strong>Language of Proceeding<\/u><\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

      The Complainant has requested that the language of proceedings shall be in English. The Registrar confirmed on October 15, 2024 that the language of the registration agreement is English. Therefore, the Panel agrees that the current process should be conducted in English.<\/p>\n

        \n
      • <\/strong>Respondent’s default<\/u><\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

        This Centre sent a notification concerning the “Commencement of Administrative Proceeding” on October 22, 2024 providing Respondent with a deadline to submit a Response within 20 days as well as with instructions about how to communicate the Response. Furthermore, this Centre also informed that the Respondent would be considered in default in case the Respondent is not sent within the deadline or if the response does not comply with all administrative requirements listed in the Rules and\/or Supplementary Rules.<\/p>\n

        On October 24, 2024 the Respondent sent an e-mail to this Centre providing with information regarding some general aspects. On November 7, 2024 the Centre sent a reminder concerning the response expiration and on November 8, 2024 the Respondent submitted a Non-standard communication named “Response to UDRP case” informing different general aspects. Since the Respondent did not respond following the administrative requirements, this Centre notified Respondent’s Default on November 12, 2024. On November 12, 2024 this Centre provided the Parties with a “Notification of delivery” whereby the Panel explained about the efforts to notify the Complaint and also the confirmation that the Respondent contacted the centre via e-mails communication but failed to file an administratively complaint response via online platform. However, the Respondent filed its statement via Nonstandard Communication<\/p>\n

        The Panel is of the impression that this Centre undertook all necessary steps to notify the Complainant to the Respondent and the Respondent had enough time to file an administrative complaint response via the online platform as indicated at the Rules and Supplementary Rules. In this sense, this Panel is neither ready to consider the statement filed by Respondent as an administrative complaint response nor accept the filing. Therefore, this Panel will not consider the Statement filed by the Respondent for the purpose of analyzing this case.<\/p>\n

        Please see paragraph 4.3. of the WIPO where it indicates:<\/p>\n

        “<\/em>Panels have typically treated a respondent’s submission of a so-called “informal response” (merely making unsupported conclusory statements and\/or failing to specifically address the case merits as they relate to the three UDRP elements, e.g., simply asserting that the case “has no merit” and demanding that it be dismissed) in a similar manner as a respondent default<\/em>”.<\/em><\/p>\n

        The Panel is satisfied that all procedural requirements under UDRP were met and there is no other reason why it would be inappropriate to provide a decision.<\/p>", "decision": "Accepted", "panelists": [ "Victor Garcia Padilla" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2024-11-20 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "

        The Complainant is the owner of the different valid trademarks with the term RUNE, RUNE SCAPE, RUNECOIN, RUNEFEST, etc. Below some examples of trademarks:<\/p>\n

          \n
        1. RUNE (word) - United Kingdom IPO UK00911161239, covering Nice Classifications 16, 25, 36, 41, registered since 9 October 2013;<\/li>\n
        2. RUNE (word) - European Union EUIPO 011161239, covering Nice Classifications 16, 25, 36, 41, registered since 9 October 2013;<\/li>\n
        3. RUNE (word) - European Union EUIPO 018622946, covering Nice Classifications 9, 16, 25, 28, 36, 41, registered since 20 May 2022;<\/li>\n
        4. RUNE SCAPE (Word) - European Union EUIPO 005077987, covering Nice Classifications 9, 16, 25 & <\/span>41, registered since 31 May 2.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

          In addition, the Complainant owns different domain names with the term “RUNE” such as <runescape.com> registered since August 17, 2000, <runefest.com> registered since March 18, 2010, <runescape.net> registered since February 18, 2001, and <runeservice.com> registered since March 5, 2005, among many other domain names.<\/p>", "decision_domains": { "runewild.com": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }