The Complainant is a British company, incorporated on 28 April 2000, and active in the business of designing, developing, publishing, and operating online video games and other electronic-based entertainment.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
The Complainant is the owner of the Trademarks mentioned above and has also provided evidence that it registered several domain names that include the word “RUNE”, such as: <runescape.com>, <runefest.com>, <runescape.net>, and <runeservice.com>.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
The Respondent is an individual, based in the Netherlands.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
The disputed domain name was created on 20 December 2018. <\/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": "
COMPLAINANT’S CONTENTIONS:<\/p>\n
The Complainant claims to be well-known internationally for its “Massively Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Games” (hereafter “MMORPG”) named “RuneScape” and “Old School RuneScape” (hereafter the “Games”). The Complainant claims that its Games average more than 3 million active users per month since October 2022. The Complainant claims that its game “Old School RuneScape” has been recognised by the Guinness World Records for being the largest free-to-play MMORPG, with over several million accounts. The Complainant further claims that its Games have generated a significant level of endorsement on social media platforms.<\/p>\n
According to the Complainant, “Old School RuneScape” was awarded “2019 EE Mobile Game of the Year” at the British Academy Games Awards, and maintains a “Metacritic” score of 87, a 4.8 rating (out of 5) on the iOS App Store, and 14,252 “Very Positive” user ratings on Steam.<\/p>\n
The Complainant also uses a wide range of other “RUNE”-formative marks within and in association with “RuneScape”, including “RuneFest”, “Runebeard”, “RuneCoins”, etc.<\/p>\n
The Complainant organizes an event called “RuneFest”, of which the tenth edition was organized in March 2025, and for which 1.500 tickets have been sold.<\/p>\n
The Complainant claims that its “RUNE” and “RUNESCAPE” brands have achieved a high level of recognition worldwide.<\/p>\n
The Complainant claims that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s Trademarks. The “.org” TLD suffix should be disregarded in the comparison. According to the Complainant, the disputed domain name includes the Complainant’s Trademark(s) as the dominant element. The Complainant states: “The combination of ‘RUNE’ and ‘REALM’ does nothing to alter the impression generated by the Disputed Domain Name in the eyes of the average Internet user.”<\/p>\n
The Complainant further claims that the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name. The Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name was registered to take advantage of the Complainant’s rights and reputation. The Complainant states that, at the registration date of the disputed domain name (20 December 2018), the Complainant already had extensive rights (both registered and unregistered) in its “RUNE” and “RUNESCAPE” brands, with a notable online presence.<\/p>\n
The Complainant claims that the Respondent uses the disputed domain name to offer a pirated version of the Complainant’s “Old School RuneScape” game, which constitutes a violation of copyright and of the Complainant’s End-User Licence Agreement (“EULA”). The Complainant submits that the Respondent has chosen the disputed domain name to take advantage of the goodwill generated by the Complainant’s online video game business, without the Respondent having to incur its own advertising or branding expenditure.<\/p>\n
The Complainant submits that the Respondent has never legitimately been known as “RUNE” at any point in time.<\/p>\n
The Complainant claims that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith, for the following reasons.<\/p>\n
The Complainant submits that the Respondent is free riding on the success of its “RUNE” and\/or “RUNESCAPE” brand including by use of the Complainant’s well-known in-game assets and promotional material, including:<\/p>\n
the website promotes a pirated copy of the “Old School RuneScape” game made available for download, the game being a direct copy of “Old School RuneScape”;<\/p>\n<\/li>\n
the wiki available at https:\/\/wiki.runerealm.org\/ is a direct copy of the Complainant’s official Old School RuneScape wiki; and<\/p>\n<\/li>\n
the use of in-game icons, taken from “Old School RuneScape”.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
The Respondent tries to impersonate 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. The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name was registered with prior knowledge of the Complainant and its Trademarks.<\/p>\n
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 must have had actual knowledge of the Complainant’s rights in the “RUNE”-brand.<\/p>\n
The Complainant further submits that the Respondent disrupts the Complainant’s business by diverting potential customers to his own website which offer similar and competing goods and services.<\/p>\n
The Complainant contends that the requirements of the Policy have been met and that the disputed domain name should be transferred to it.
<\/p>\n
RESPONDENT’S CONTENTIONS:<\/p>\n
NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.<\/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": "
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>\n
Request for anonymization of the published decision<\/p>\n
On April 2, 2025, the Respondent requested that his name and address be withheld from publication in the decision. The Respondent’s request is based on the following concerns: (1) The Respondent originally used a Whois privacy service to protect his personal information; (2) The Respondent does not wish to be contacted by other potential or future respondents targeted by the Complainant; (3) The Respondent fears that publication may result in doxing or harassment; and (4) In a prior case (CAC-UDRP-106953, concerning the domain name <runewild.com>), the Panel granted anonymisation of the decision.<\/p>\n
The Panel notes that Article 4.j of the Policy explicitly states: “All decisions under this Policy will be published in full over the Internet, except when an Administrative Panel determines in an exceptional case to redact portions of its decision.”<\/p>\n
The Policy governs the relationship between the Respondent and Namecheap, the registrar of the Disputed Domain Name. The Policy is incorporated by reference into the Respondent’s registration agreement with the registrar and outlines the terms and conditions for resolving disputes between the Respondent and third parties such as the Complainant over the Disputed Domain Name.<\/p>\n
The Respondent’s concerns do not amount to “exceptional“ circumstances (e.g., identity theft or similarly serious threats) that would justify redaction of the decision. Accordingly, the Panel finds no basis for anonymizing the decision.<\/p>\n
For the sake of completenes, the Panel states that the adress and other contact information of the Respondent are not part of the published Panel decision.<\/p>", "decision": "Accepted", "panelists": [ "Bart Van Besien" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2025-04-07 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "
The Complainant submitted evidence that it is the owner of the following trademarks (hereafter together referred to as the “Trademarks”, and each separately as a “Trademark”):<\/p>\n