{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-107956", "time_of_filling": "2025-09-19 07:48:34", "domain_names": [ "turmoilrsps.quest" ], "case_administrator": " Iveta Špiclová (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "Jagex Limited" ], "complainant_representative": "Stobbs IP (Stobbs IP)", "respondent": [ "TrentaHost INC." ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "

The Complainant is renown for its massively multiplayer online role-playing games \"RuneScape\" and \"OldSchool RuneScape\". Together, these games average a total of more than 3 million users per month since October 2022. The \"OldSchool RuneScape\" game has been recognized by the Guiness World Records as the largest free-to-play multiplayer online role-playing game, with over 300 million accounts. The Complainant' s games have received public and critical praise, such as the EE Mobile Game of the Tear by the British Academy Games Awards in 2019.<\/span><\/p>\n

The \"RuneScape\" game is commonly abbreviated to \"RS\", and the \"Old School RuneScape\" is frequently referred to as \"OSRS\". The Complainant owns registered trademark rights for RUNESCAPE, RS OLD SCHOOL, RUNE and OSRS.<\/p>\n

The disputed domain name was registered on April 4, 2024, and resolves to a website promoting a videogame similar to the Complainant's \"Old School RuneScape\" videogame, using terms strictly connected with this videogame. <\/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": "

I. Complainant<\/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

In particular, the Complainant contends that the Complainant has acquired substantial goodwill in the terms \"runescape\" and \"rs\" and that these terms are recognized by the public as distinctive of the Complainant's services. Consequently, the Complainant's trademarks have achieved a high level or recognition worldwide. The disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant's trademark in its entirety as the distinctive and dominant element of the disputed domain name. The inclusion of the descriptive term \"turmoil\" and the letters \"ps\", within the disputed domain name, cannot prevent a lack of confusing similarity of the disputed domain name with the Complainant's earlier mark. The trademark RS is recognizable within the disputed domain name as it is a colloqualism used by fans of the Complainant's games to commonly refer to them. The letters \"ps\", instead, could refer to the wording \"private server\" and could describe a private server of the Complainant's games. As far as the other component of the disputed domain name is concerned, namely, the term \"turmoil\", it is a common term generally used in the Complainant's games. Therefore, also the addition of this second term should not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. An Internet user would associate \"rs\" and \"turmoil\" combined to indicate that the disputed domain name originates from the Complainant. <\/span><\/p>\n

Lastly, with respect to the gTLD \".quest\", the Complainant requests to omit it when assessing the confusing similarity of the disputed domain name with the Complainant's mark, as it is a mere technical requirement. In the alternative, the Complainant requests the Panelist to base its evaluation on how the disputed domain name is likely to be perceived globally. The term \"quest\" is in fact commonly used in multiplayer online role-playing games and in the Complainant's games. <\/span><\/p>\n

The Complainant further contends that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. <\/p>\n

The Complainant does not have and has never had authorisation to use the Complainant's mark in relation to online videogames, nor any other goods or services protected under the Complainant's marks. Upon information and belief, the Complainant submits that the Respondent has never been legitimately known as RS or RUNESCAPE at any point of time. The disputed domain name is not been used by the Respondent legitimately or for a noncommercial or fair use. The disputed domain name leads to a website which provides and promotes a pirated copy of the Complainant's game. Accordingly, the Respondent is using the disputed domain name illegitimately and for a competing activity, which does not amount to a fair use. <\/span><\/p>\n

Finally, the Complainant's maintain that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Complainant's marks, including RS and RUNESCAPE enjoy a substantial reputation. Furthermore, it is clear that the Respondent was unequivocally aware of the RUNESCAPE and RS trademarks for the following reasons:<\/p>\n

- the Respondent's website is promoting a pirated copy of the Old School RuneScape game made available for download, being the game a direct copy of Old School RuneScape;<\/p>\n

- the background imaginary used on the Respondent's website's homepage is taken from the Complainant's games;<\/span><\/p>\n

- the Respondent makes reference to the Complainant's mark OSRS and to elements which feature in the Complainant's games. <\/p>\n

The Complainant submits that the only plausible explanation is that the Respondent's service impersonates the Complainant's games or otherwise intentionally uses the Complainant's copyrighted-protected works and adopts confusingly similar names and assets to divert traffic to the Respondent's website in order to promote a pirated version of the Complainant's game. Therefore, the Respondent registered the disputed domain name being fully aware of the Complainant's mark in order to take advantage of the attractive power of this mark to consumers of online video games. Accordingly, the Respondent's behaviour amounts to bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name. In addition, the Respondent disrupts the Complainant's business by diverting potential consumers to the its website, which offers similar and competing goods and services. <\/span><\/p>\n

The Complainant has a previous successful UDRP decision against the Respondent concerning the registration of a domain name comprising the Complainant's mark with additional elements. Accordingly, the Respondent has engaged in a pattern of conduct in registering the disputed domain name, which evidences bad faith. <\/span><\/p>\n

Lastly, the Complainant points out that where a Respondent has obfuscated its identity to avoid service of a UDRP proceeding or legal action, this can be considered an additional element of bad faith.<\/p>\n

II. Response<\/p>\n

The Respondent did not file any Response.<\/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": "

Although the Respondent did not file a Response in this UDRP proceeding, on the day the relevant deadline it sent a communication to the CAC, informing that it had acted only as a reseller and is not the beneficial registrant of the disputed domain name. The named Respondent also stated that it had provided the full underlying registrant details privately to the Registrar of the disputed domain name for verification and updating of the relevant information on the related WhoIs. The Respondent, therefore, requested that the CAC treat the disclosed registrant as the proper Respondent in this UDRP dispute. <\/span><\/p>\n

In reply, the Complainant submitted an unsolicited supplemental filing stating that the disputed domain name was locked and that consequently, the WhoIs details could not be updated. Consequently, the named Respondent must provide its disclosure to the CAC. Moreover, the Complainant asserts that the Respondent's disclosure was not made in a timely manner, as the named Respondent provided its information on the deadline for the Response expired and after the Panelist appointment. Consequently, the Complainant did not have an opportunity to amend its Complaint. The Complainant also requested that the CAC and the Panel name the named Respondent and the underlying beneficial registrant as co-respondents in this proceeding once the relevant data has been disclosed.   <\/span><\/p>\n

For the sake of clarity, the Panel notes that the case file contains no additional information regarding the beneficial registrant of the disputed domain name as neither the named Respondent nor the Registrar ever provided information in this respect.<\/p>", "decision": "Accepted", "panelists": [ "Angelica Lodigiani" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2025-11-03 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "

The Complainant is, amongst others, also the owner of the following trademark:<\/p>\n

- RS, United Kingdom registration No. UK00905122916, registered on May 10, 2007 for services in class 41.<\/p>\n

The Complainant is also the owner of several domain names incorporating the RS mark, such as <rsclassic.com>, which resolves to the website www.runescape.com<\/a>. <\/p>", "decision_domains": { "turmoilrsps.quest": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }