DECISION

 

Roblox Corporation v. Mikhail Pridannikov

Claim Number: FA2508002174178

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Roblox Corporation ("Complainant"), represented by Alyssa Worsham of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, California, USA. Respondent is Mikhail Pridannikov ("Respondent"), Russia.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME 

The domain name at issue is <rbx.camp>, registered with NameCheap, 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.

 

Debrett G. Lyons as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on August 28, 2025; Forum received payment on August 28, 2025.

 

On September 1, 2025, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <rbx.camp> domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. NameCheap, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameCheap, 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 September 2, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of September 22, 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@rbx.camp. Also on September 2, 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 September 23, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Debrett G. Lyons 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 asserts trademark rights in RBX and submits that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark.

 

Complainant alleges that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

 

Further, Complainant alleges that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

The factual findings pertinent to the decision in this case are that:

1.       Complainant uses the trademark, ROBLOX, in connection with its interactive game software, and uses the trademarks ROBUX and RBX in connection with the virtual currency employed in those games;

2.       Complainant is the owner of Hong Kong trademark Reg. No. 304740462, registered from 20 November 2018, for the trademark, RBX;

3.       the disputed domain name was registered on November 2, 2021, using a privacy service to shield the name of Respondent; and

4.       the disputed domain name resolves to a website which offers for sale at a discounted price, virtual currency said to be compatible with the ROBLOX games made by Complainant.

 

DISCUSSION

Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted 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.  

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires a two-fold enquiry—a threshold investigation into whether a complainant has rights in a trademark, followed by an assessment of whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to that trademark.

 

It is well established by decisions under this Policy that a trademark registered with a national authority is evidence of trademark rights (see, for example, Mothers Against Drunk Driving v. phix, FA 174052 (Forum Sept. 25, 2003)).  Complainant therefore has rights in RBX since it provides proof of registration of that trademark in its name with the Hong Kong Trademarks Office, a national trademark authority.   

 

For the purposes of comparison of the domain name with the trademark, the gTLD, ".camp", can be disregarded (see, for example, Rollerblade, Inc. v. McCrady, D2000-0429 (WIPO June 25, 2000) finding that the top level of the domain name such as ".net" or ".com" does not affect the domain name for the purpose of determining whether it is identical or confusingly similar). Thereafter, the domain name is identical to the trademark for the purposes of the Policy and so the Panel need not consider Complainant's submission of confusing similarity (see, for example, Audigier Brand Mgmt. Grp., LLC v. bai wentao, FA 1286108 (Forum  Nov. 16, 2009) holding that even after the "addition of a ccTLD the disputed domain name is still identical to Complainant's mark."); Abt Elecs., Inc. v. Ricks, FA 904239 (Forum  Mar. 27, 2007) ("The Panel also finds that Respondent's <abt.com> domain name is identical to Complainant's ABT mark since addition of a generic top-level domain ("gTLD") is irrelevant when conducting a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis.")). 

 

The Panel therefore finds that the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy are satisfied.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy states that any of the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be proved based on its evaluation of all evidence presented, shall demonstrate rights or legitimate interests to a domain name for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy:

 

(i) before any notice to you of the dispute, your use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services;  or

 

(ii) you (as an individual, business, or other organization) have been commonly known by the domain name, even if you have acquired no trademark or service mark rights;  or

 

(iii) you are making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.

 

Complainant need only make out a prima facie case that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, after which the onus shifts to Respondent to rebut that case by demonstrating those rights or interests (see, for example, Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, D2000‑0624 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000)).

 

The name of Respondent was shielded by a privacy service. Forum issued a Deficiency Notice and the Amended Complaint then named Mikhail Pridannikov as Respondent. Nothing in the evidence indicates that Respondent might be commonly known by the domain name (see, for example, Tercent Inc. v. Lee Yi, FA 0139720 (Forum Feb. 10, 2003) stating "nothing in [the respondent's] WHOIS information implies that [the respondent] is 'commonly known by' the disputed domain name" as one factor in determining that Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) does not apply").

 

There is no evidence that Respondent has any trademark rights. Complainant states that Respondent has no authority to use the trademark and the Panel accepts that statement. The Complaint includes evidence that the domain name resolves to a website which uses the RBX trademark in connection with the offer to sell the proprietary virtual currency used in the games made by Complainant. The Complaint states that:

 

"…unsuspecting visitors, proceeding under the misguided impression that Respondent's site is in some way affiliated with Complainant or Complainant itself, will either register for an account on Respondent's site and potentially engage in virtual currency transactions assuming they are engaging with Complainant, or they may enter their login credentials and other personally identifiable information (PII) used to access Complainant's legitimate site and thereby inadvertently reveal those credentials and PII to Respondent for potentially nefarious purposes." 

 

The Panel finds that a prima facie case has been made out that Respondent lacks rights or a legitimate interest in the disputed domain name. If the resolving site is used to phish for personal or account information, and/or fraudulently induce payment for goods which will never be delivered, there is clearly no bona fide offering of goods or services. If the resolving site has been in operation since November 2021 when the domain name was created and has sold and delivered tokens of value, then on the evidence it has done so without Complainant's permission to use the trademark and, once more, that is not a bona fide offering of goods or services (see, for example, Telstra Corp. Ltd. v. Nuclear Marshmallows, Case No. D2000-0003 (WIPO Feb. 13, 2000) finding that the respondent had no rights or legitimate interests to use the domain name where it was not licensed or otherwise permitted to use the complainant's trademark)

 

Accordingly, the onus shifts to Respondent to rebut that case by demonstrating those rights or interests.  Absent a Response, that onus is not met and so the Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied the second limb of the Policy.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Complainant must prove both that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith and used in bad faith. Further guidance on that requirement is found in paragraph 4(b) of the Policy, which sets out four circumstances, any one of which is taken to be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith if established. 

 

The four specified circumstances are:

 

(i) circumstances indicating that the respondent has registered or acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of the respondent's documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or

 

(ii) the respondent has registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that Respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or

 

(iii) the respondent has registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or

 

(iv) by using the domain name, respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, internet users to respondent's website or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the respondent's website or location or of a product or service on the site or location.

 

The evidence supports the application of paragraph 4(b)(iv) above. The Panel has already found the disputed domain name to be identical to the trademark. Confusion is inevitable. The use of the domain name is clearly for commercial gain. In terms of the Policy, the Panel finds that Respondent has used the disputed domain name to attract, for commercial gain, internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of that website (see, for example, Charter Communications Holding Company, LLC v. Webdesk Two, FA 1800636 (Forum Sept. 5, 2018) finding bad faith in registration of <spectrumpack.com> because "[u]se of a domain name to create a false impression of affiliation with a complainant in order to compete with and disrupt the complainant's business is behavior indicative of bad faith registration and use per Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv).").

 

The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied the third and final element of the Policy.

 

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 domain name <rbx.camp> be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Debrett G. Lyons, Panelist

Dated:  September 24, 2025