NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM

DECISION

Roblox Corporation v. Robux Swap

Claim Number: FA2502002141489

PARTIES

Complainant is Roblox Corporation ("Complainant"), represented by Christine Au-Yeung of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, California, USA. Respondent is Robux Swap ("Respondent"), Great Britain.

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <rbx365.com>, registered with Cloudflare, Inc.

PANEL

The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.

The Honorable Neil Anthony Brown KC as Panelist.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on February 21, 2025; Forum received payment on February 21, 2025.

On February 25, 2025, Cloudflare, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <rbx365.com> domain name is registered with Cloudflare, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Cloudflare, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Cloudflare, Inc. 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 February 26, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 18, 2025 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@rbx365.com. Also on February 26, 2025, 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 March 19, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed The Honorable Neil Anthony Brown KC 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 made the following contentions.

1. The Complainant is a United States company engaged in the provision of a very successful online game and experience platform named ROBLOX and known popularly as RBX and it has been so engaged since 2006.

2. The Complainant provides its goods and services under the trademark for RBX. In particular, the evidence will establish that the Complainant has acquired registered trademark rights in the RBX trademark by virtue of its registration of that trademark with the Trademarks Registry, Intellectual Property Department, the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, registration number 304740462, registered on November 20, 2018 and several other trademarks for RBX and derivatives and RBLX internationally (collectively "the RBX trademark"). The Complainant has used that trademark since its registration to offer its goods and services.

3. The RBX trademark has attracted substantial goodwill and is uniquely associated with the Complainant's goods and services.

4. As well as its trademark, the Complainant has registered numerous domain names including the domain name <rbx.com> and other domain names such as <roblox.com>that it uses in its business and in particular for its website at www.roblox.com where it markets its products under the RBX trademark.

5. The Respondent registered the <rbx365.com> domain name on November 10, 2022 ("the disputed domain name").

6. The disputed domain name embodies, without the consent of the Complainant, the RBX trademark with the addition of the group of numbers "365"and the Top Level Domain ".com".

7. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the RBX trademark.

8. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. That is so because:

(d) the Respondent has used the Complainant's RBX trademark to offer competing goods and services including virtual currency;

(e) the Respondent could easily have promoted its own goods and services without using the RBX trademark; and

(f) there is no other ground on which it could conceivably be shown that the Respondent has a right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name under the Policy or otherwise.

9. The Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith. That is so because:

(a) the Respondent had actual knowledge of the Complainant, its name and trademark prior to registering the disputed domain name;

(b) the Complainant's trademark rights were well established before the Respondent registered the domain name;

(d) the Respondent is misleading internet users by asserting on its website that "RBX is a place where you can earn Robux";

(e) the Respondent appears to have attempted typosquatting; and

(f) all of the acts, facts, matters and circumstances to be revealed by the evidence will show that the Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith.

The evidence will therefore establish that the Complainant has made out all of the grounds it must establish and that it is entitled to the relief it seeks.

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

FINDINGS

2. The Complainant provides its goods and services under the trademark for RBX. In particular, the evidence has established that the Complainant has acquired registered trademark rights in the RBX trademark by virtue of its registration of that trademark with the Trademarks Registry, Intellectual Property Department, the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, registration number 304740462, registered on November 20, 2018 and several other trademarks for RBX and derivatives and RBLX internationally (collectively "the RBX trademark"). The Complainant has used that trademark since its registration to offer its goods and services.

3. The Respondent registered the <rbx365.com> domain name on November 10, 2022 ("the disputed domain name").

4. The Respondent has caused the disputed domain name to resolve to a website which is an infringement of the Complainant's trademark, passed itself off as the Complainant, offered goods and services for sale under the trademark that are the same or similar to those of the Complainant, disrupted the Complainant's business and generated confusion between the Complainant and the Respondent.

5. By reason of the matters aforesaid, and as established by the evidence, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the RBX trademark, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and the disputed domain name has been registered and used in bad faith.

6. Accordingly, the disputed domain name should be transferred from the Respondent to the Complainant.

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

The first question that arises is whether the Complainant has rights in a trademark or service mark on which it may rely in this proceeding. The evidence establishes that the Complainant provides its goods and services under the trademark for RBX. In particular, the evidence has established that the Complainant has acquired registered trademark rights in the RBX trademark by virtue of its registration of that trademark with the Trademarks Registry, Intellectual Property Department, the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, registration number 304740462, registered on November 20, 2018 and several other trademarks for RBX and derivatives and RBLX internationally (collectively "the RBX trademark"). The Complainant has used that trademark since its registration to offer its goods and services.

The aforesaid facts have been established by documentary evidence that the Panel has examined and finds to be in order.

The Complainant has thus established its trademark rights and hence its standing to bring this proceeding.

The next question that arises is whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant's RBX trademark.

The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the RBX trademark. The disputed domain name embodies, without the consent of the Complainant, the entirety of RBX trademark and the addition of the group of numbers "365" and the addition of the generic Top Level Domain ".com". It is now well-established that when a domain name includes the entirety of a trademark, it is more likely than not that the domain name is invoking the trademark and is thus confusingly similar to it. In the present case it is obviously so. Thus, internet users would read the domain name as invoking the RBX trademark, as dealing with the Complainant's goods and services offered under the trademark, and as being either a domain name of the Complainant itself or one that has been registered with its consent. The presence of the group of numbers "365" does not negate that conclusion but re-affirms it because, as the Complainant submits, internet users would take the domain name to mean that it was associated with the trademark and that the offerings available through the domain name were available on 365 days of the year.

The addition of the generic Top Level Domain ".com" is ignored in making the comparison, because all domain names must have such an extension.

The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the RBX trademark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

The Complainant has thus made out the first of the three elements that it must establish under the Policy.

Rights or Legitimate Interests

It is now well established that the Complainant must first make a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) and that, if the prima facie case is made out, the burden then shifts to the Respondent to show that it does have such rights or legitimate interests. See Advanced International Marketing Corporation v. AA-1 Corp, FA 780200 (Forum Nov. 2, 2011) (finding that a complainant must offer some evidence to make its prima facie case and satisfy Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)).

The Panel finds on the evidence that the Complainant has made out a prima facie case that arises from the following considerations. The Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name on all of the grounds relied on by the Complainant, which are:

(a) the Respondent has not used the domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), but rather has used it to divert web traffic and lure enthusiasts of Complainant's offerings to a website that is unrelated to the Complainant to promote the Respondent's competing enterprise and entails the promotion of the Respondent's games and a virtual currency that is being passed off as the Complainant's Robux currency; it is clear that what has happened in this case is that the Respondent has helped itself to the Complainant's trademark and created a domain name that virtually states that it is the Complainant, uses the trademark on its website, states that it can provide the Complainant's goods and services on 365 days of the year and that it can lead internet users to those offerings and actually acquire Robux, the Complainant's well-known virtual currency, no doubt for the Respondent's own financial benefit; moreover, when the Respondent uses "rbx365" on its website, the "rbx" and the "365" are printed in different colors, no doubt to emphasize the trademarked "rbx"; this is supported by the Complainant's Exhibit H which shows that the Respondent was offering services similar to those of the Complainant (which can be seen from the Complainant's official and genuine site at Exhibit E) and in competition with them; not only was the Respondent's website calculated to mislead potential customers but it was successful in doing so, judging by the number of complaints from users appearing on the site that they could not retrieve their Robux currency which had mysteriously disappeared; thus it appears that some sort of fraud was being perpetrated; there is nothing bona fide about any of this and it is clear that it could not give rise to a right or legitimate interest in the domain name used to perpetrate the Respondent's subterfuge;

(b) the Complainant has never given any licence, permission or authority to the Respondent to use the RBX trademark or any similar mark and there has never been any affiliation or relationship between the Complainant and the Respondent; thus, it could not be suggested that the registration and use of the domain name came about by any form of consent by the Complainant;

(c) the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii); there is no evidence that the Respondent is known by the domain name or by any name other than its own, albeit that it registered the domain name in the name Robux Swap;

(d) the Respondent has used the Complainant's RBX trademark to offer competing goods and services including virtual currency; this has already been established by the evidence the Panel has referred to and particularly Exhibits E and H;

(e) the Respondent could easily have promoted its own goods and services without using the RBX trademark; this is self-evident; and

(f) the evidence shows that there is no other ground on which it could conceivably be shown that the Respondent has a right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name under the Policy or otherwise; thus, it is apparent to the Panel that the evidence does not give rise to any right or legitimate interest on the grounds that the Respondent has used the domain name for a legitimate non-commercial or fair use within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).

The Complainant has therefore made out a persuasive case for all of the grounds it relies on to show that the Respondent does not have a right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name.

All of these matters make out the prima facie case against the Respondent. The Respondent has not filed a Response and is in default and has thus not rebutted the prima facie case against it.

The Complainant has therefore made out the second of the three elements it must establish under the Policy.

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

It is clear that to establish bad faith for the purposes of the Policy, the Complainant must show that the disputed domain name was registered and used in bad faith. It is also clear that the criteria set out in the Policy ¶ 4(b) are not exclusive but that domain name proceedings may also rely on conduct that is bad faith within the generally accepted meaning of that expression.

The Complainant has submitted that the Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith on several grounds. In view of the evidence discussed above, which is equally applicable to bad faith as it is to rights and legitimate interests and which it is not necessary to repeat, it is clear that the Complainant has made out all of the grounds relied on.

In particular, it is clear from the evidence that, as the Complainant has submitted:

(a) the Respondent had actual knowledge of the Complainant, its name and trademark prior to registering the disputed domain name; this has been well-established by the wide public recognition and use of the Complainant's offerings of its online games and experiences under the RBX trademark and the use of its virtual currency known as "Robux" which the evidence shows is widely referred to as RBX; as the Respondent has clearly copied the Complainant's trademark, tried to give the impression that it is the Complainant, offered access to the RBX virtual currency and offered games and experiences that are either the same as the Complainant's or very similar to them and in competition with them, it is only too clear that the Respondent had actual knowledge of the Complainant, its name, trademark and goods and services when it, the Respondent, registered the domain name and, equally, while it was using the domain name; all of these factors combine to shows that the Respondent's modus operandi was in bad faith right from its inception;

(b) the Complainant's trademark rights were well established before the Respondent registered the domain name; this has been established by the evidence, showing again that the Respondent did not come to this exercise with innocence but to copy the well-established and reputable name and activities of the Complainant conducted under its RBX trademark and to extract money from users whom, as already noted, have found in numerous cases that their virtual currency has disappeared into the virtual ether;

(c) the Respondent has used the domain name to create initial interest confusion with directly competing offerings; clearly, the first significant step the Respondent had to take in this subterfuge was to induce internet users to believe that they were heading for the Complainant's site when in fact they were not, and that they could obtain the goods and services of the Complainant there, which they could not; thus, to create confusion was an early and major objective of the Respondent which is a ground for a finding of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) which the Panel now makes;

(d) the Respondent has been misleading internet users by asserting on its website that "RBX is a place where you can earn Robux"; it has already been established by the evidence that for some users, the offending website was a place where they could lose Robux;

(e) the Respondent appears to have attempted typosquatting; as the Complainant has pointed out, the Respondent took the Complainant's trademark and changed its spelling by adding "365" to make it appear that the domain name was an official domain name of the Complainant or one that was registered with its consent, neither of which was true; such conduct is also bad faith; and

(f) all of the acts, facts, matters and circumstances revealed by the evidence have shown that the Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith.

Finally, in addition to the specific provisions of the Policy and having regard to the totality of the evidence, the Panel finds that, in view of the Respondent's registration of the disputed domain name using the RBX trademark and in view of the conduct of the Respondent, as shown by all of the available evidence, the Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith within the generally accepted meaning of that expression.

The Complainant has thus made out the third of the three elements that it must establish.

The Complainant has also cited several prior UDRP decisions that support all of its contentions.

The Complainant has therefore established all of the elements that it must show under the Policy and it is entitled to the relief it seeks, namely transfer of the disputed domain name.

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 <rbx365.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

The Honorable Neil Anthony Brown KC

Panelist

Dated: March 20, 2025