DECISION

 

NEXON Korea Corporation and NEXON America Inc. v. Edward Jiang

Claim Number: FA2604002218650

 

PARTIES

Complainant is NEXON Korea Corporation and NEXON America Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Meaghan H. Kent of Venable LLP, District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is Edward Jiang ("Respondent"), Kansas, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <maplelegends.com>, 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.

 

Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq. as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on April 29, 2026; Forum received payment on April 29, 2026.

 

On April 30, 2026, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <maplelegends.com> 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 May 1, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of May 21, 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@maplelegends.com. Also on May 1, 2026, 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 May 22, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq. 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 NEXON Korea Corporation.

 

PRELIMINARY ISSUE: MULTIPLE COMPLAINANTS

In the instant proceeding, there are two Complainants, namely NEXON Korea Corporation ("NEXON Korea") and NEXON America Inc. ("NEXON America"). Complainants assert that NEXON America and NEXON Korea are affiliated companies under the same parent ownership of Nexon Co., Ltd., and that while NEXON Korea is the owner of the U.S. trademarks incorporated in the disputed domain name, NEXON America holds an exclusive license agreement to offer certain services under the MAPLESTORY and MAPLE-formative trademarks in the U.S., as well as certain rights to distribute and sell goods.

Paragraph 3(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") provides that "[a]ny person or entity may initiate an administrative proceeding by submitting a complaint." Moreover, Forum's Supplemental Rule 1(e) defines "The Party Initiating a Complaint Concerning a Domain Name Registration" as a "single person or entity claiming to have rights in the domain name, or multiple persons or entities who have a sufficient nexus who can each claim to have rights to all domain names listed in the Complaint."

Previous panels have interpreted Forum's Supplemental Rule 1(e) to allow multiple parties to proceed as a single Complainant where they can show a sufficient link to each other. For example, in Vancouver Org. Comm. for the 2010 Olympic and Paralymic Games & Int'l Olympic Comm. v. Malik, FA 666119 (Forum May 12, 2006), the panel stated:

"It has been accepted that it is permissible for two complainants to submit a single complaint if they can demonstrate a link between the two entities such as a relationship involving a license, a partnership or an affiliation that would establish the reason for the parties bringing the complaint as one entity."

In Tasty Baking, Co. & Tastykake Invs., Inc. v. Quality Hosting, FA 208854 (Forum Dec. 28, 2003), the panel treated the two complainants as a single entity where both parties held rights in trademarks contained within the disputed domain names. Likewise, in Am. Family Health Srvs. Group, LLC v. Logan, FA 220049 (Forum Feb. 6, 2004), the panel found a sufficient link between the complainants where there was a license between the parties regarding use of the TOUGHLOVE mark.

The Panel finds that a sufficient nexus exists between Complainants and treats them as a single entity for the purposes of this proceeding. Hereinafter, Complainants will be referred to collectively as "Complainant." 

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A.       Complainant

i) Founded in 1994, Complainant NEXON Korea is an industry leader following the 2003 launch of its blockbuster franchise, MAPLESTORY. Its affiliate, Complainant NEXON America (founded in 2006), offers MAPLESTORY to U.S. consumers under a free-to-play model. Complainants have continuously used the MAPLESTORY and other MAPLE-formative trademarks for their gaming services, developing significant goodwill through substantial investments in promoting these games. Complainant has rights in the MAPLESTORY, MAPLESTORY (with a maple leaf device), and other various MAPLE-formative marks through Complainants' registration of the marks with the USPTO (e.g., MAPLESTORY: Reg. No. 3,683,484, registered September 15, 2009; MAPLESTORY with a maple leaf device mark: Reg. No. 3,565,035, registered January 20, 2009). The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainants' marks, as it incorporates the most dominant and distinctive element of Complainant's MAPLE marks, with the only alteration being the addition of the term "legends" inserted after "MAPLE," and the addition of the ".com" gTLD.

 

ii) Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent has not been commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor has Complainant authorized or permitted Respondent to register or use Complainants' MAPLE marks. Respondent's name in connection with the disputed domain name is currently privacy-protected and, therefore, not listed. Respondent does not use the disputed domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services, or for any legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Respondent appears to be operating deceptively and in bad faith to trick consumers into engaging with an unauthorized site that appears to be endorsed by or affiliated with Complainants, when it is not.

 

iii) Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith to capitalize on Complainants' goodwill. Respondent had actual or constructive knowledge of Complainants' rights, yet copied Complainants' MAPLE marks and branding to operate a private server for commercial gain through donations, creating a likelihood of confusion. Respondent appears to be using the disputed domain name to provide free access to MAPLESTORY through private servers, while also accepting donations from Respondent's members. This intentional misappropriation to promote competing services, combined with the use of a privacy registration service, demonstrates Respondent's bad faith.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent did not submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

1. The disputed domain name was registered on September 13, 2014.

 

2. Complainant has established rights in the MAPLESTORY, MAPLESTORY (with a maple leaf device), and other various MAPLE-formative marks through Complainants' registration of the marks with the USPTO (e.g., MAPLESTORY: Reg. No. 3,683,484, registered September 15, 2009; MAPLESTORY with a maple leaf device mark: Reg. No. 3,565,035, registered January 20, 2009).

 

3. Respondent's website located at the disputed domain name masquerades as a private platform displaying Complainants' mark "MAPLESTORY" in the heading "The Old School MAPLESTORY Server" with a maple leaf device, as well as the name "MAPLE LEGENDS."

 

4. The menu bar of the website at the disputed domain name lists "MapleLegends," "Register," "Download," "Rankings," "Vote for Cash," "Library," and "Community." Clicking on "Download" displays five game products under the names "WINDOWS," "MIRROR I," "MIRROR II," "MIRROR III," and "MAC," which all appear to be competing products that compete with Complainants' services.

 

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 Overview 3.1 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

Complainant asserts rights in the MAPLESTORY, MAPLESTORY (with a maple leaf device), and other various MAPLE-formative marks through Complainants' registration of the marks with the USPTO (e.g., MAPLESTORY: Reg. No. 3,683,484, registered September 15, 2009; MAPLESTORY with a maple leaf device mark: Reg. No. 3,565,035, registered January 20, 2009). Registration of a mark with the USPTO is sufficient to demonstrate rights in the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Therefore, the Panel finds Complainant has demonstrated rights in the MAPLESTORY and MAPLE-formative marks per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Complainant argues that the disputed domain name <maplelegends.com> is confusingly similar to Complainants' marks as it incorporates the most dominant and distinctive element of Complainants' MAPLE marks, with the only alteration being the addition of the term "legends" inserted after "MAPLE," and the addition of the ".com" gTLD.

 

The Panel notes that Complainant owns rights in various MAPLE- formative trademarks including MAPLESTORY, MAPLEUNIVERSE, MAPLE SOUL HERO, and MAPLE TOY TOWN through its USPTO trademark registrations. As such, the Panel considers that the portion "MAPLE" is one of the dominant and distinctive portions of Complainants' marks. The Panel finds that adding the generic term "legends" and the ".com" gTLD to a dominant portion of Complainants' marks fails to sufficiently distinguish the disputed domain name from the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Therefore, the Panel finds the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainants' marks under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Section 2.1, WIPO Overview 3.1 ("Where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element.").

 

Complainant asserts Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name as Respondent is not licensed or authorized to use Complainant's marks and is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Where a response is lacking, WHOIS information may be used to determine whether a respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). The unmasked WHOIS information for the disputed domain name lists the registrant as "Edward Jiang." The Panel finds that there is nothing in the record to suggest that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. Therefore, the Panel finds Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).

 

Complainant argues that Respondent does not use the disputed domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use, as Respondent appears to be operating deceptively and in bad faith to trick consumers into engaging with an unauthorized site that appears to be endorsed by or affiliated with Complainants, when it is not.

 

The Panel observes that passing off as a complainant does not qualify as a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy paragraphs 4(c)(i) or (iii). see Ripple Labs Inc. v. Jessie McKoy / Ripple Reserve Fund, FA 1790949 (Forum July 9, 2018) (finding the respondent did not use the domain name for a bona fide offering or legitimate noncommercial use where the resolving website featured the complainant's mark and related content); see also Wolverine World Wide, Inc. v. Fergus Knox, FA 1627751 (Forum Aug. 19, 2015) (holding that no bona fide offering or legitimate use existed where the respondent's website sold products branded with the complainant's mark without authorization).

 

The Panel notes from the screenshots of the disputed domain name's resolving website and Complainants' official website that Respondent's website is designed to appear as though it were operated by, or affiliated with, Complainant. It prominently displays the name "MAPLE LEGENDS" along with a maple leaf device, including the mark "MAPLESTORY" in the subheading of the website "The Old School MAPLESTORY Server." As a result of the Panel's review of the website at the disputed domain name, the Panel finds that the menu bar lists "MapleLegends," "Register," "Download," "Rankings," "Vote for Cash," "Library," and "Community." Clicking on "Download" displays five game products under the names "WINDOWS," "MIRROR I," "MIRROR II," "MIRROR III," and "MAC," which all appear to be competing products that compete with Complainants' services.

 

The Panel finds that Respondent's use of the disputed domain name to impersonate Complainant and divert Internet users seeking Complainant to Respondent's website, which displays a download interface for competing game products that compete with those of Complainant, thereby gaining commercial benefits, does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial use under Policy paragraphs 4(c)(i) or (iii).

 

The Panel finds that Complainant has made out a prima facie case that arises from the considerations above. All of these matters go to make out the prima facie case against Respondent. As Respondent has not filed a Response or attempted by any other means to rebut the prima facie case against it, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Complainant asserts that Respondent's registration and use of the disputed domain name constitute bad faith, as Respondent appears to be using the disputed domain name to provide free access to MAPLESTORY through private servers, while also accepting donations from Respondent's members. This intentional misappropriation to promote competing services, combined with the use of a privacy registration service, demonstrates Respondent's bad faith.

 

The Panel notes that passing off as a complainant while offering competing products is indicative of bad faith registration and use under Policy paragraphs 4(b)(iii) and (iv). see Ontel Products Corporation v. waweru njoroge, FA 1762229 (Forum Dec. 22, 2017) ("Respondent's primary offering seems to be counterfeits of Complainant's toy car products. Respondent's use of the <magictrackscars.com> domain name is thus disruptive to Complainant's business per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)."); see also Russell & Bromley Limited v. Li Wei Wei, FA 1752021 (Forum Nov. 17, 2017) (finding bad faith where the respondent used the domain to pass off as the complainant and offer counterfeit goods).

 

As evidenced by the record, Complainant has submitted a screenshot showing the disputed domain name resolving to a website prominently displaying Complainants' mark "MAPLESTORY" in the heading "The Old School MAPLESTORY Server" with a maple leaf device, as well as the name "MAPLE LEGENDS." The menu bar of the website at the disputed domain name lists "MapleLegends," "Register," "Download," "Rankings," "Vote for Cash," "Library," and "Community."

 

Although Complainant asserts that Respondent appears to be using the disputed domain name to provide free access to MAPLESTORY through private servers; while also accepting donations from Respondent's members, the Panel does not identify this fact from the website of the disputed domain name alone Complainant has provided. Thus, the Panel has visited the website at the disputed domain name and finds that clicking on "Download" displays five game products under the names "WINDOWS," "MIRROR I," "MIRROR II," "MIRROR III," and "MAC," which all appear to be competing products that compete with Complainants' services.

 

The Panel concludes that such passing-off activities disrupt Complainants' business by diverting Internet users seeking Complainant to competitors' products, creating a likelihood of confusion as to the source of the products, and enabling Respondent to derive commercial gain. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith within the meaning of Policy paragraphs 4(b)(iii) and (iv).

 

Complainant further contends that Respondent registered the disputed domain name with full awareness of Complainants' rights in Complainants' marks. The Panel notes that founded in 1994, Complainant NEXON Korea develops online games, manages development studios, and has established itself as an industry leader following the 2003 launch of its blockbuster franchise, MAPLESTORY. Its affiliate, Complainant NEXON America (founded in 2006), introduced micro-transactions and the free-to-play business model to the U.S. market, which includes offering MAPLESTORY to U.S. consumers. Since their first use, Complainants have continuously used the MAPLESTORY and other MAPLE, formative trademarks for their gaming-related goods and services. Complainants have invested substantial time, effort, and hundreds of thousands of dollars in promoting these games, thereby developing significant goodwill in connection with Complainants' MAPLE marks.

 

Given the notoriety of Complainants' MAPLESTORY and other MAPLE- formative trademarks and Respondent's passing-off conduct, the Panel infers that Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainants' trademark rights. Such conduct evidences bad faith registration under Policy paragraph 4(a)(iii).

 

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 <maplelegends.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant NEXON Korea Corporation.

 

 

 

Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq., Panelist

Dated: May 23, 2026