DECISION

 

Roblox Corporation v. sdhfjksdjkf efhesjkfhkds

Claim Number: FA2608002240232

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Roblox Corporation ("Complainant"), United States, represented by Alyssa Worsham of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, United States. Respondent is sdhfjksdjkf efhesjkfhkds ("Respondent"), Singapore.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <rblx.bid>, registered with Dynadot 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.

 

David E. Sorkin as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on August 17, 2026; Forum received payment on August 17, 2026.

 

On August 19, 2026, Dynadot Inc confirmed by email to Forum that the <rblx.bid> domain name is registered with Dynadot Inc and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Dynadot Inc has verified that Respondent is bound by the Dynadot 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 August 24, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of September 14, 2026 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via email to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@rblx.bid. Also on August 24, 2026, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the email 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 15, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed David E. Sorkin 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 is the creator of ROBLOX, an online game and experience platform. The platform has grown dramatically in popularity since its launch in 2006, and had approximately 123 million active daily users at the end of June 2026. Complainant trades on the New York Stock Exchange using the ticker symbol RBLX and asserts that RBLX is widely used by investors, media, and users as a shorthand reference to Complainant and its platform. Complainant owns trademark registrations for RBLX in China, the European Union, and elsewhere. Complainant also owns trademark rights in related marks that include ROBLOX, ROBUX, and RBX.

 

The disputed domain name <rblx.bid> was registered in May 2026. The name is registered in the name of a privacy registration service on behalf of Respondent. The domain name is being used for an online gambling website that prominently and repeatedly displays the RBLX mark. The website refers to and appears to be targeted at Indonesia, where gambling is strictly prohibited. Complainant states that Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name and is not licensed or otherwise permitted to use Complainant's RBLX mark.

 

Complainant contends on the above grounds that the disputed domain name <rblx.bid> is identical or confusingly similar to its RBLX mark; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is identical to a mark in which Complainant has rights; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

 

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 of WIPO Panel Views on Select UDRP Questions, § 4.3 (version 3.1, 2026), available at https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview; UDRP Perspectives on Recent Jurisprudence, §§ 0.2, 0.8 (updated June 2, 2025), available at https://udrpperspectives.org/; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (dismissing complaint where complainant failed to "produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations").

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

The disputed domain name <rblx.bid> corresponds to Complainant's registered RBLX trademark, adding only the ".bid" top-level domain. The addition of a top-level domain is normally disregarded for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. See, e.g., Roblox Corp. v. Mikhail Pridannikov, FA 2174178 (Forum Sept. 24, 2025) (finding <rbx.camp> identical to RBX); Boygenius Inventions, LLC v. James Smit / WPBeginner Cloud Inc., FA 1779391 (Forum Apr. 26, 2018) (finding <wpbeginner.bid> identical to WPBEGINNER); see also Roblox Corp. v. Stacy Waugh, FA 2195170 (Forum Jan. 13, 2026) (finding <rblxwild.org> confusingly similar to RBLX). The Panel considers the disputed domain name to be identical to a mark in which Complainant has rights.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Under the Policy, the Complainant must first make a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and then the burden shifts to the Respondent to come forward with concrete evidence of such rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Productions, Inc. v. Entertainment Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006).

 

The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant's registered mark without authorization. Its sole apparent use has been for a misleading website that promotes unrelated and likely unlawful gambling services, using Complainant's mark in a manner that the Panel infers to be an attempt to pass off as or otherwise indicate an association with Complainant. Such use does not give rise to rights or legitimate interests under the Policy. See, e.g., AbbVie Biotechnology Ltd v. Christophe Bartoletti, FA 2223192 (Forum June 18, 2026) (finding lack of rights or interests in similar circumstances); Takeda Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd. v. Summer Tree, FA 2083975 (Forum Mar. 8, 2024) (same); 7-Eleven, Inc. v. GIBB TAY ZHI JIU, FA 2040299 (Forum May 23, 2023) (same); Jessica Queller v. Damma Laima / APT, FA 2027196 (Forum Feb. 11, 2023) (same).

 

Complainant has made a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain name, and Respondent has failed to come forward with any evidence of such rights or interests. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has sustained its burden of proving that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Finally, Complainant must show that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Under paragraph 4(b)(iii) of the Policy, bad faith may be shown by evidence that Respondent registered the disputed domain name "primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor." Under paragraph 4(b)(iv), bad faith may be shown by evidence that "by using the domain name, [Respondent] intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [Respondent's] web site 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 [Respondent's] web site or location or of a product or service on [Respondent's] web site or location."

 

Respondent used a privacy registration service and what the Panel infers to be at least partially fictitious underlying registration information to register a domain name corresponding to Complainant's registered mark, and is using the name for a website that uses the mark to imply an association with Complainant while promoting unrelated services. Such circumstances are indicative of bad faith registration and use under the Policy. See, e.g., AbbVie Biotechnology Ltd v. Christophe Bartoletti, supra (finding bad faith registration and use in similar circumstances); Takeda Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd. v. Summer Tree, supra (same); 7-Eleven, Inc. v. GIBB TAY ZHI JIU, supra (same); Jessica Queller v. Damma Laima / APT, supra (same). The Panel so finds.

 

DECISION

Having considered the three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <rblx.bid> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

David E. Sorkin, Panelist

Dated: September 15, 2026