DECISION

 

Roblox Corporation v. Nunnaya Bisnass / Falklands Network

Claim Number: FA2606002227445

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Roblox Corporation ("Complainant"), represented by Alyssa Worsham of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, California, USA. Respondent is Nunnaya Bisnass / Falklands Network ("Respondent"), Great Britain.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <rblx.party>, registered with Cloudflare, Inc.

 

PANEL

The undersigned certifies that they have acted independently and impartially and to the best of their knowledge have no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.

 

Richard Hill as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on June 15, 2026; Forum received payment on June 15, 2026.

 

On June 16, 2026, Cloudflare, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <rblx.party> 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 June 25, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 15, 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@rblx.party. Also on June 25, 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.

 

An informal Response was received and determined to be complete on June 25, 2026.

 

On July 16, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Richard Hill 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.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant states that it is the creator of the internationally popular Roblox platform, an online game and experience platform. Since the company's launch in 2006, Complainant's platform has grown dramatically in popularity. Roblox has over 130 million daily active users. Complainant's online platform hosts user-created games of all kinds and is accessed by millions of people via computers, smartphones, and mobile devices. Players can create personalized "avatars," play games and engage with others, and buy, sell, and create virtual items that can be used to decorate their avatars. The platform also allows game developers to build deeply immersive, three-dimensional environments where users can share experiences with others, independent of where they may be physically. The Roblox platform is free-to-play, with in-game purchases available through a virtual currency called "Robux." The Robux currency enables players to buy virtual items such as hats and weapons, and can be obtained from a recurring stipend given to members with premium membership, and from other players who produce, buy or sell virtual content on the platform. Complainant's Robux virtual currency has been referred to with the shorthand RBX for many years. The Roblox platform is extremely popular and use of the platform has increased over time. As of the first quarter of 2026, Roblox has over 130 million daily active users who have engaged in 31 billion hours on the platform. As of March 31, 2026, Complainant's revenue was $1.4 billion. As a result of extraordinary consumer enthusiasm for the Roblox platform, Complainant has garnered a great deal of publicity, including in popular game enthusiast publications such as GameRant. Complainant asserts rights in the mark RBLX through its registration in the European Union in 2021. The mark is registered elsewhere around the world.

 

Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its RBLX mark because it incorporates the mark in its entirety, merely adding the ".party" generic top-level domain ("gTLD"). Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.

 

According to Complainant, Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name since Respondent is not licensed or authorized to use Complainant's mark and is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Respondent does not use the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, the disputed domain name resolves to a website that clearly attempts to exploit the goodwill associated with Complainant and its RBLX mark. The resolving website displays Complainant's mark, refers to Complainant's Roblox platform, and prompts users to authenticate or provide their official Roblox account information under a purported verification process. The bottom of the homepage displays, in small, low-contrast font, the following disclaimer identifying itself as an independent Roblox community forum, and also contains the language "Sign in with your Roblox account to join the conversation", reinforcing the site's functionality of prompting users to authenticate and provide their official Roblox account information. The resolving website displays pop-up banner content promoting what appears to be another website owned by Respondent that also impersonates Complainant. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.

 

Further, says Complainant, Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. The resolving website impersonates Complainant. The use of a disclaimer does nothing to cure Respondent's bad faith. Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's mark. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent states: "Respondent does not contest the Complaint and consents to the transfer of the domain name."

 

FINDINGS

For the reasons set forth below, the Panel will not make any findings of fact.

 

DISCUSSION

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.

 

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."

 

In the present case, the parties have both asked for the domain name to be transferred to the Complainant. In accordance with a general legal principle governing arbitrations as well as national court proceedings, this Panel holds that it cannot act nec ultra petita nec infra petita, that is, that it cannot issue a decision that would be either less than requested, nor more than requested by the parties. Since the requests of the parties in this case are identical, the Panel has no scope to do anything other than to recognize the common request, and it has no mandate to make findings of fact or of compliance (or not) with the Policy.

 

See Malev Hungarian Airlines, Ltd. v. Vertical Axis Inc., FA 212653 (Forum Jan. 13, 2004); see also Boehringer Ingelheim Int'l GmbH v. Modern Ltd. – Cayman Web Dev., FA 133625 (Forum Jan. 9, 2003) (transferring the domain name registration where the respondent stipulated to the transfer); see also Disney Enters., Inc. v. Morales, FA 475191 (Forum June 24, 2005) ("[U]nder such circumstances, where Respondent has agreed to comply with Complainant's request, the Panel felt it to be expedient and judicial to forego the traditional UDRP analysis and order the transfer of the domain names.").

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

For the reasons set forth above, the Panel will not analyze this element of the Policy.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

For the reasons set forth above, the Panel will not analyze this element of the Policy.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

For the reasons set forth above, the Panel will not analyze this element of the Policy.

 

DECISION

Given the common request of the Parties, it is Ordered that the <rblx.party> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Richard Hill, Panelist

Dated: July 16, 2026