DECISION

 

Epic Games, Inc. v. sebastian zava / Epic Games / Epic Games / Epic Games

Claim Number: FA2512002196403

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Epic Games, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Sloan L. E. Carpenter of Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein LLP, North Carolina, USA. Respondent is sebastian zava / Epic Games / Epic Games / Epic Games ("Respondent"), Canada.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES 

The domain names at issue are <recover-epicgames.com>, <mail-epicgames.com> and <email-epicgames.com>, registered with Squarespace Domains II LLC.

 

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.

 

James Bridgeman SC as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on December 23, 2025; Forum received payment on December 23, 2025.

 

On December 26, 2025, Squarespace Domains II LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <recover-epicgames.com>, <mail-epicgames.com> and <email-epicgames.com> domain names are registered with Squarespace Domains II LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Squarespace Domains II LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Squarespace Domains II LLC 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 30, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of January 20, 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@recover-epicgames.com, postmaster@mail-epicgames.com, postmaster@email-epicgames.com.

 

Also on December 30, 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.

 

A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on December 30, 2025.

 

On December 31, 2026 pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed James Bridgeman SC as Panelist.

 

On January 5, 2026, as described in detail below, noting that in its Response, Respondent offered to transfer the disputed domain names to Complainant on certain conditions, the Panel issued a Procedural Order No. 1 requesting Complainant's additional submissions; and Complainant made submissions on January 7,2026.

 

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.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the disputed domain names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PRELIMINARY ISSUE: CONSENT TO TRANSFER

In response to the notice of Complaint, Respondent sent an email message to Forum as follows:

 

UDRP Case No. FA2512002196403 Respondent hereby states that Respondent does not contest the relief requested by the Complainant and consents to the transfer of the disputed domain names to the Complainant. Respondent makes no admissions as to any factual or legal allegations asserted in the Complaint and respectfully requests that the Panel order transfer of the disputed domain names based solely on Respondent's consent, without findings on the merits. Respectfully submitted,"

 

On January 5, the Panel issued Procedural Order No. I inter alia requesting Complainant to provide a statement setting out whether Complainant requests that the Panel proceed

        a.        to make a full reasoned decision on the tests set out in Policy ¶¶ 4(a)(i)-(iii) on the merits, or

        b.        to direct that the disputed domain names be transferred to  Complainant on the basis that Respondent makes no admissions as to any factual or legal allegations asserted in the Complaint and that the Panel order transfer of the disputed domain names based solely on Respondent's consent, without findings on the merits.

 

On January 7, 2026, in response to the Panel's Procedural Order No. 1, Complainant requested that the Panel proceed to make a full reasoned decision on the tests set out in Policy ¶¶ 4(a)(i)-(iii) on the merits.

 

As there was no unconditional offer by Respondent to transfer the disputed domain name, the Panel decides that it is appropriate to grant Complainant's request and the Panel should proceed to determine the Complaint on the merits.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant claims rights in the EPIC and EPIC GAMES trademarks established by its ownership of the registered trademarks described below and submits as follows:

 

Complainant is a globally recognized creator, developer, and publisher of video games, game engines, and content‑creation software.

 

Founded in 1991 and headquartered in Cary, North Carolina, Complainant has established itself as a leading entity in the interactive entertainment industry. Over the course of more than three decades, Complainant has developed and published numerous successful video game franchises, including the UNREAL, GEARS OF WAR, and INFINITY BLADE series, and is best known as the creator of the massively popular video game FORTNITE, which has amassed over 500 million registered accounts worldwide, as exhibited in an annex to the Complaint.

 

Through decades of continuous use, extensive promotion, and global recognition, Complainant has also developed substantial goodwill and reputation in its trademarks EPIC and EPIC GAMES, which are uniquely associated with Complainant and its high-quality goods and services in the gaming industry.

 

Complainant has invested substantial resources in promoting its goods and services under its trademarks EPIC and EPIC GAMES, which have become distinctive and widely recognized in the gaming industry and among consumers worldwide, and the marks have been used continuously and extensively in commerce since at least as early as 1999.

 

Complainant also operates under the mark EPIC GAMES PUBLISHING and hosts the EPIC GAMES STORE, a curated digital distribution platform for video and computer games that serves over 295 million users globally.

 

Complainant's ecosystem includes nearly 898 million accounts with more than six billion friend connections across its video games, digital storefront, and online services, as exhibited in an annex to the Complaint.

 

Complainant has also maintained a strong online presence through its domain name <epicgames.com>, which it has owned and used since at least January 5, 1995. This domain currently redirects to <https://www.store.epicgames.com/en-US> and resolves to Complainant's official digital storefront, a screen capture of which is inserted into the Complaint.

 

Complainant's trademarks have achieved significant fame and goodwill through extensive media coverage and industry recognition. For example, in 2021, Complainant was named the "Most Popular Gaming Brand in the World," as exhibited in an annex to the Complaint. Articles published by reputable sources such as Screen Rant and Business Insider have highlighted Complainant's ability to innovate and adapt to its vast audience, noting the success of FORTNITE and the company's strategic initiatives to redefine industry standards, as exhibited in annexes to the Complaint.

 

Firstly, Complainant alleges that the disputed domain names <recover-epicgames.com>, <mail-epicgames.com>, and <email-epicgames.com> are each confusingly similar to Complainant's registered trademarks EPIC and EPIC GAMES. Each disputed domain name incorporates the entirety of Complainant's marks, with only minor additions that do not serve to distinguish the domain names from the marks. The disputed domain names differ from Complainant's marks solely by the addition of generic terms such as "recover," "mail," or "email," a hyphen, and the generic Top-Level Domain ("gTLD") extension <.com>.

 

These additions are legally insufficient to avoid a finding of confusing similarity under the Policy, and panels have consistently held that the incorporation of a complainant's mark in its entirety within a domain name, combined with the addition of generic or descriptive terms, does not negate confusing similarity.

 

The addition of a hyphen and generic words does not materially alter the overall impression of the domain name, which remains dominated by Complainant's distinctive marks. For example, in Twitter, Inc. v. qwewqqwwqe et al., FA 1992610 (Forum May 27, 2022), the Panel found that adding a hyphen, a generic term, and the ".com" gTLD was insufficient to differentiate the disputed domain name from the incorporated mark.

 

Complainant contends that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names <recover-epicgames.com>, <mail-epicgames.com>, and <email-epicgames.com> under Paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. Complainant asserts the following:

·       Complainant has not licensed, authorized, or otherwise permitted Respondent to use its trademarks EPIC or EPIC GAMES in any manner;

·       Respondent is not affiliated with, sponsored by, or connected to Complainant in any way;

·       Complainant's marks have been used for nearly three decades and are distinctive and well-known in the gaming industry;

·       Respondent's registration and use of the disputed domain names incorporating Complainant's marks without authorization demonstrates the absence of any rights or legitimate interests;

·       Respondent Is not commonly known by the disputed domain names;

·       the WHOIS information available to the public for the disputed domain names identifies the registrant name as "Redacted for Privacy," which bears no resemblance to the disputed domain names or Complainant's marks, which strongly indicates that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names;

·       panels established under the Policy have consistently held that a finding that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests is supported where the WHOIS data shows no connection between the registrant name and the domain name at issue: for example in the decision in Transamerica Corp. v. Host Master / Transure Enterprise Ltd, FA 1841115 (Forum May 28, 2019), the Panel concluded that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name where WHOIS information did not resemble the domain name.

·       as shown in the screen capture exhibited in the Complaint, the disputed domain names each resolve to inactive webpages displaying an "under construction" message, and such non-use does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).

·       panels established under the Policy have repeatedly held that passive holding or non-use of a confusingly similar domain name demonstrates a lack of rights or legitimate interests, as in for example the decision in Blink Health Inc. v. Asif Khan / BlinkRXhealth, FA 2156708 (Forum June 17, 2025), the Panel found that resolving to an "under construction" page was evidence of no legitimate interest;

·       Complainant's trademarks EPIC and EPIC GAMES were registered on June 30, 1998, January 8, 2002, and April 2, 2019, all of which precede Respondent's registration of the disputed domain names on August 21, 2025, September 11, 2025, and September 19, 2025, and the prior existence and fame of Complainant's marks further negate any claim by Respondent to rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names.

 

Thirdly Complainant alleges that each of the disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith:

 

As stated above, Complainant's trademarks EPIC and EPIC GAMES were registered on June 30, 1998, January 8, 2002, and April 2, 2019, long before Respondent registered the disputed domain names on August 21, 2025, September 11, 2025, and September 19, 2025.

 

Given the fame and global recognition of Complainant's marks, it is inconceivable that Respondent registered the disputed domain names without actual knowledge of Complainant's rights. Panels established under the Policy have consistently held that prior knowledge of a complainant's trademark supports a finding of bad faith registration. For example, in Epic Games, Inc. v. Name Mgmt. Grp. / Nanci Nette, FA 2170237 (Forum Aug. 29, 2025), the Panel found that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in EPIC GAMES when registering <epicgames.co>.

 

Respondent's registration of the disputed domain names incorporating Complainant's marks without authorization disrupts Complainant's business and diverts Internet users seeking Complainant's legitimate services. Such conduct falls within the circumstances described in Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii), which identifies registration primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor as evidence of bad faith.

 

The exhibited screen captures show that the disputed domain names resolve to inactive webpages displaying an "under construction" message, as exhibited in an annex to the Complaint. Passive holding of a domain name incorporating a well-known trademark constitutes bad faith use and registration under the Policy. Panels have repeatedly held that failure to make active use of a confusingly similar domain name is evidence of bad faith. In The Mosaic Company v. Kuichuan Wang, FA 2108482 (Forum Aug. 28, 2024), the Panel stated that passive holding further demonstrates bad faith.

 

By incorporating Complainant's marks EPIC and EPIC GAMES in their entirety, the disputed domain names create a likelihood of confusion as to source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement. Under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv), such conduct constitutes bad faith. Panels have held that any use of a domain name incorporating a famous mark would inevitably cause consumer confusion. In Epic Games, Inc. v. Patrick Walton, FA 2174531 (Forum Sept. 24, 2025), the Panel noted that given the fame of Complainant's marks, "it is difficult to envisage any use of the disputed domain name that would not violate the Policy."

 

FINDINGS

Complainant is a creator, developer, and publisher of video games and software, and relevantly is the owner of the following trademark and service mark registrations:

·       United States registered trademark EPIC, registration number 2168887, registered on the Principal Register on June 30, 1998 for goods or services in international class 9, 42.

·       United States registered trademark EPIC GAMES, registration number 2527709, registered on the Principal Register on January 8, 2002 for goods or services in international class 9, 42.

·       United States registered trademark EPIC GAMES, registration number 5712420, registered on the Principal Register on April 2, 2019 for goods or services in international class 9, 35, 41, 45.

 

The disputed domain names were registered on August 21, 2025, September 11, 2025 and September 19, 2025 respectively, and each resolves to a website that displays an inactive "under construction" page and no other content except for the disputed domain name which resolves to it. 

 

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.

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

The Complainant has provided uncontested convincing evidence of its rights in the EPIC and EPIC GAMES mark established by its the ownership of the service mark registrations described below and its use of the mark in its business manufacturing and marketing video games, game engines, and content‑creation software.

 

Each of the disputed domain names <recover-epicgames.com>, <mail-epicgames.com> and <email-epicgames.com> contains both the EPIC and EPIC GAMES marks in their entirety in combination with the generic terms "recover", "mail" and "email" and in each case a hyphen together with the generic Top-Level Domain ("gTLD") extension <.com>.

 

It is well established that, as in the present case, it is sufficient for a complainant to establish that the domain name at issue contains the mark relied upon in its entirety, to satisfy the first element of the test in Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Furthermore, neither the generic terms nor the hyphen in each of the disputed domain names prevent a finding of confusing similarity; and the gTLD extension <.com> may be ignored for the purposes of comparing the disputed domain names with Complainant's marks, because the gTLD extension would be considered by Internet users to be a necessary technical element for a domain name in each case

 

The Complainant has therefore succeeded in the first element of the test in Policy paragraph 4(a)(i) in respect of each of the disputed domain names.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant has made out a prima facie case that Respondent has no rights legitimate interests in the disputed domain name as set out in Complainant's detailed submissions above.

 

In particular, each of the disputed domain names contains Complainant's EPIC and EPIC GAMES trademark and service mark. Each resolves to an almost identical webpage.

 

Each of Respondent's webpages contain the same abstract image in its background and the statement "We're under construction. Please check back for an update soon." There is no indication that Respondent has any particular business or enterprise and no contact details.

 

It is well established that once a complainant makes out a prima facie case that a respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name at issue, the burden of production shifts to the respondent to prove its rights or legitimate interests.

Respondent has failed to discharge that burden and therefore this Panel must find that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

 

Complainant has therefore succeeded in the second element of the test in Policy paragraph 4(a)(ii).

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Complainant's trademarks EPIC and EPIC GAMES were registered on June 30, 1998, January 8, 2002, and April 2, 2019, long before Respondent registered the disputed domain names on August 21, 2025, September 11, 2025, and September 19, 2025. 

 

Furthermore, Complainant has shown that it has developed a significant international goodwill and reputation in the digital games industry and has owned and used the Internet domain name <epicgames.com> since at least as early as January 5, 1995.

 

Given that Complainant's marks are the dominant elements in each of the disputed domain names, it is implausible that the registrant was unaware of Complainant, its trademarks and reputation when the disputed domain names were each chosen and registered.

 

The Panel finds therefore that on the balance of probabilities each of the disputed domain names were chosen and registered in bad faith with Complainant and its EPIC and EPIC marks in mind with the intention of taking predatory advantage of Complainant's business goodwill and reputation.

 

The evidence shows that the disputed domain names each resolve to an almost identical single webpage with no content except from an abstract background image, the respective disputed domain name and a statement that the website is under construction.

 

Furthermore, the record shows that each of the disputed domain names has been registered availing of a privacy service.

 

While the disputed domain names are not being passively held, as such, in the sense that they do not resolve to any website or location, using each of them as the address of a webpage that purports to be "under construction" constitutes passive holding which indicates bad faith for the purposes of the Policy.

 

Taking all the circumstances in the round the Panel finds that each of the disputed domain names was registered and is being used in bad faith.

 

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 <recover-epicgames.com>, <mail-epicgames.com> and <email-epicgames.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

_____________________________________

 

James Bridgeman SC

Panelist

Dated: January 9, 2026