DECISION

 

Epic Games, Inc. v. hai liu

Claim Number: FA2512002195095

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Epic Games, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Sloan L.E. Carpenter of Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein LLP, North Carolina, USA. Respondent is hai liu ("Respondent"), Hong Kong.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <epicgamestop.com>, registered with Aceville Pte. Ltd.

 

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.

 

Paul M. DeCicco, as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on December 17, 2025; Forum received payment on December 17, 2025.

 

On December 18, 2025, Aceville Pte. Ltd. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <epicgamestop.com> domain name is registered with Aceville Pte. Ltd. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Aceville Pte. Ltd. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Aceville Pte. Ltd. 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 December 22, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Chinese and English Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of January 12, 2026 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@epicgamestop.com. Also on December 22, 2025, the Chinese and English 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 in Chinese and English.

 

On January 13, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Paul M. DeCicco 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.

 

PRELIMINARY ISSUE: LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDING

Complainant registered EPIC GAMES in the United States for the benefit of Complainant's United States based business. The mark contains English characters and the English words "EPIC" and "GAMES." The <epicgamestop.com> domain name also contains those English words as well as the word "stop" and its webpage is a literal copy Complainant's genuine career webpage.

 

Notwithstanding that the relevant Registration Agreement may have been written in Chinese, pursuant to UDRP Rule 11(a) the Panel finds persuasive evidence to suggest the likely possibility that Respondent is to a material degree conversant and proficient in the English language. Since Respondent most likely has a working knowledge of the English language, Complainant would be unduly burdened if this proceeding were to continue in Chinese as there would be no cognizable benefit to Respondent, the dispute resolution provider, or the Panel, and yet Complainant would have to alone endure the time and expense of facilitating the translation of relevant documents into Chinese.

 

Therefore, after considering the circumstances of the present case including the proper service of a Chinese and an English Written Notice of the Complaint upon Respondent and Respondent's failure to respond thereto, the Panel finds that the instant proceeding should be in English.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant contends in part as follows:

 

Complainant Epic Games Inc., founded in 1991 and based in Cary, North Carolina, is a creator, developer, and publisher of video games, a game engine, and content-creation software. Nearly 898 million accounts with more than 6 billion friend connections have been created across Complainant's video games, digital storefront, and online services. Complainant has had numerous successful games over the years, including the Unreal, Gears of War, and Infinity Blade series of games, and is now probably best known as the creator of the massively successful video game FORTNITE. Complainant also acts as a game publisher under the mark EPIC GAMES PUBLISHING and hosts the EPIC GAMES STORE, a curated distribution platform of video and computer games with over 295 million users.

 

The at-issue domain name resolves to a webpage that mimics Complainant's career webpage. Specifically, the domain name resolves to a webpage that features Epic Games' registered trademarks and copyrighted material, and phishes for Complainant's consumers' and employees' Epic Games usernames and passwords to gain access to Complainant's network.

 

The Domain Name Is Confusingly Similar to Complainant's Registered Marks Under Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. Complainant's U.S. trademark registrations for the marks EPIC and EPIC GAMES are each sufficient to establish Complainant's rights in the marks under Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. The at-issue domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's marks EPIC and EPIC GAMES because it: (1) incorporates the whole of Complainant's EPIC and EPIC GAMES marks; and (2) merely adds the generic term "top" and the generic Top Level Domain ("gTLD") ".com". Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), adding a gTLD and/or generic terms and/or relevant or meaningless letters is insufficient in differentiating a disputed domain name from the mark it incorporates.

 

Respondent Has No Rights or Legitimate Interests in the Domain Name Under Paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. Complainant's EPIC and EPIC GAMES trademarks were registered on June 30, 1998, January 8, 2002, and April 2, 2019, all of which precede the date Respondent registered the Domain Name, namely, November 15, 2025. Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use any of its trademarks, including EPIC and EPIC GAMES, in any manner whatsoever. Further, Respondent is not connected to, sponsored by, or affiliated with Complainant. Therefore, Respondent cannot use Complainant's registered trademarks, which Complainant has used for three decades, for any bona fide offering of goods and services. Notwithstanding this, Respondent registered the domain name and is using the domain name to impersonate Complainant and conduct a phishing scheme. Respondent's phishing scheme does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services, or legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name. Additionally, under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), Respondent's name "hai liu" as the Registrant, does not resemble the domain name, which tends to indicate that Respondent has not been commonly known by the domain name and thus does not have any rights or legitimate interests in it. Accordingly, Complainant respectfully submits that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name.

 

Respondent Registered and Is Using the Domain Name in Bad Faith Under Paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy. Respondent's use of the domain name to conduct a fraudulent phishing scheme is proof that Respondent registered the domain name both to disrupt Complainant's business and to attract, for commercial gain, consumers, particularly Complainant's target consumers and employees, and mislead them into visiting the domain name and providing Respondent with their Epic Games login information by impersonating Complainant. This conduct is evidence of Respondent's bad-faith registration and use of the domain name. Furthermore, considering the demonstrated fame and publicity that Epic Games has received over the past 30 years – as well as the fact that Respondent impersonates Epic Games and phishes for its consumers' and employees' login information – it is inconceivable that Respondent registered and is using the domain name without knowledge of Complainant and its EPIC GAMES mark. Indeed, "where a disputed domain name is so obviously connected with such a well-known name, product or service, its use by someone with no connection to the name, product or service indicates opportunistic bad faith." Lastly, when any use of a domain name would cause consumer confusion, the Panel has found bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). Since Respondent's domain name consists of the entirety of Complainant's registered mark EPIC GAMES and the generic term "top," any use would cause consumer confusion and constitutes use in bad faith.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant has rights in the EPIC and EPIC GAMES marks

 

Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant and had not been authorized to use Complainant's trademark in any capacity.

 

Respondent registered the at‑issue domain name after Complainant acquired rights in the EPIC and EPIC GAMES trademarks.

 

Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to address a webpage to pass off as Complainant and phish for personal information from internet users seeking employment with 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 based on 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 at-issue domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights.

 

Complainant shows that it registered its EPIC trademark and EPIC GAMES trademark with the USPTO. Any of these trademark registrations is sufficient to demonstrate Complainant's rights in a mark under the Policy. See BGK Trademark Holdings, LLC & Beyoncé Giselle Knowles-Carter v. Chanphut / Beyonce Shop, FA 1626334 (Forum Aug. 3, 2015) (asserting that Complainant's registration with the USPTO (or any other governmental authority) adequately proves its rights under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)).

 

The at-issue domain name contains Complainant's entire EPIC GAMES trademark followed by the term "top," with all followed by the ".com" top-level. The differences between the <epicgamestop.com> domain name and Complainant's trademark are insufficient to distinguish the domain name from Complainant's trademark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent's <epicgamestop.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's EPIC GAMES mark. See Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) ("Where a relevant trademark is recognizable within a disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element.")

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must first make out a prima facie case showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of an at-issue domain name and then the burden, in effect, shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm't Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006). Since Respondent failed to respond, Complainant's prima facie showing acts conclusively.

 

Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant's trademark in any capacity and as discussed below, there are no Policy ¶ 4(c) circumstances from which the Panel might find that Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in respect of the at‑issue domain name. See Navistar International Corporation v. N Rahmany, FA 1620789 (Forum Jun. 8, 2015) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the at-issue domain name where the complainant had never authorized the respondent to incorporate its NAVISTAR mark into any domain name).

 

The WHOIS information for <epicgamestop.com> ultimately leads to identifying the registrant behind the domain name's privacy service as "hai lui" and the record contains no evidence that tends to prove that Respondent is commonly known by <epicgamestop.com>. The Panel therefore concludes that Respondent is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Coppertown Drive-Thru Sys., LLC v. Snowden, FA 715089 (Forum July 17, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <coppertown.com> domain name where there was no evidence in the record, including the WHOIS information, suggesting that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain name).

 

Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to address a webpage that copies Complainant's genuine Careers At EPIC GAMES webpage. Respondent's <epicgamestop.com> webpage, like Complainant's genuine webpage, contains a webform allowing visitors to enter login data or ask to sign-up for an account with Complainant. Respondent's webform facilitates a phishing scheme to harvest third-party data as visitors may mistakenly enter actual or believed login credentials, or "sign-up" under the false impression that they are dealing with Complainant. Respondent's use of <epicgamestop.com> is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor a legitimate non-commercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Insomniac Holdings, LLC v. Mark Daniels, FA 1735969 (Forum July 15, 2017) (refusing to find rights and legitimate interests in a domain name on the part of a respondent when the disputed domain name "resolves to a website that Respondent has designed to mimic Complainant's own in an attempt to pass itself off as Complainant"); see also, Ripple Labs Inc. v. NGYEN NGOC PHUONG THAO, FA 1741737 (Forum Aug. 21, 2017) ("Respondent uses the [disputed] domain name to divert Internet users to Respondent's website… confusing them into believing that some sort of affiliation exists between it and Complainant… [which] is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).")

 

Given the foregoing, Respondent lacks rights and lacks legitimate interests in respect of <epicgamestop.com>.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

As discussed below without being exhaustive, Respondent acted in bad faith.

 

As discussed above under rights and legitimate interests, Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to pass itself off as Complainant in furtherance of a phishing scheme whereby third parties interested in working for Complainant are deceived into falsely believing they are visiting Complainant's Careers At EPIC GAMES webpage. Respondent may then rely on the confusion it created between Respondent's domain name and Complainant's trademark to exploit such parties by deceptively collecting their personal account-related information. Respondent's divisiveness is disruptive to Complainant's business and indicative of bad faith registration and use per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Bittrex, Inc. v. Wuxi Yilian LLC, FA 1760517 (Forum Dec. 27, 2017) (finding bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where "Respondent registered and uses the <lbittrex.com> domain name in bad faith by directing Internet users to a website that mimics Complainant's own website in order to confuse users into believing that Respondent is Complainant, or is otherwise affiliated or associated with Complainant."); see also, Google Inc. v. Domain Admin / Whois Privacy Corp., FA1506001622862 (Forum Aug. 10, 2015) (finding that the respondent's apparent use of the disputed domain name in furtherance of a 'phishing' scheme further established its bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)).

 

Moreover, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in Complainant's EPIC GAMES mark when Respondent registered <epicgamestop.com>. Respondent's actual knowledge is apparent from the mark's fame, as well as from Respondent's use of the domain name to address a website that is an exact copy of Complainant's corresponding webpage. See Lemon Inc. v. Sumer Singh, FA 2110519 (Forum Sept. 5, 2024 ("registration of a disputed domain name with actual knowledge of another's trademark rights is sufficient to establish bad faith, and can be shown by the notoriety of the mark and the use the Respondent makes of the disputed domain name"); see also, Minicards Vennootschap Onder FIrma Amsterdam v. Moscow Studios, FA 1031703 (Forum Sept. 5, 2007) (holding that respondent registered a domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) after concluding that respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's mark when registering the disputed domain name); see also, Univision Comm'cns Inc. v. Norte, FA 1000079 (Forum Aug. 16, 2007) (rejecting the respondent's contention that it did not register the disputed domain name in bad faith since the panel found that the respondent had knowledge of the complainant's rights in the UNIVISION mark when registering 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 <epicgamestop.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

 

Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist

Dated: January 15, 2026