WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Supercell Oy v. See PrivacyGuardian.org / Mediastack

Case No. D2017-2177

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Supercell Oy of Helsinki, Finland, represented by Roschier Brands, Attorneys Ltd., Finland.

The Respondent is See PrivacyGuardian.org of Phoenix, Arizona, United States of America (“United States”) / Mediastack of Ha Noi, Viet Nam.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <supercellvn.com> (the “Domain Name”) is registered with NameSilo, LLC (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on November 7, 2017. On November 7, 2017, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On November 8, 2017, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the Domain Name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on November 14, 2017 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on November 16, 2017.

The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).

In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on November 21, 2017. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was December 11, 2017. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on December 14, 2017.

The Center appointed Ian Lowe as the sole panelist in this matter on December 27, 2017. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7.

4. Factual Background

According to the Complainant’s website at “www.supercell.com”, the Complainant, Supercell, is a mobile game developer based in Helsinki, Finland, with offices in San Francisco, Tokyo, Seoul and Shanghai. Its games are available for tablets and smartphones using both Apple’s iOS and Google’s Android operating systems. Since its founding in 2010, the Complainant has brought four games to the market – Hay Day, Clash of Clans, Boom Beach and Clash Royale.

The Complainant is the proprietor of a number of registered trademarks in respect of the word mark and stylized word mark SUPERCELL (the “Mark”) in many jurisdictions around the world, including Finland trademark number 261374 registered on June 13, 2014, European Union trade mark number 9704446 registered on October 29, 2013 and United States trademark number 85235988 registered on April 5, 2016, all in respect of the word mark SUPERCELL.

The Domain Name was registered on June 19, 2017 and resolves to a website at “www.supercellvn.com” (the “Website”) whose home page states (in the Vietnamese language) “We are Supercell Vietnam”. Through the Website, the Respondent offers a range of services to Vietnamese consumers in respect of the Complainant’s computer games. In particular, the Respondent offers hacks or cheats that enable the user to obtain enhanced features of the Complainant’s Clash of Clans game at prices lower than those offered by the Complainant on its website. In so doing, the Respondent is enabling users who purchase its services to violate the Complainant’s terms and conditions of use of its software.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to its SUPERCELL trademarks, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name, and that the Respondent registered and is using the Domain Name in bad faith within the meaning of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.

B. Respondent

The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

For this Complaint to succeed in relation to the Domain Name the Complainant must prove that:

(i) the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and

(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and

(iii) the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Complainant has uncontested rights in the Mark, both by virtue of its various trademark registrations around the world and as a result of the goodwill and reputation acquired through its widespread use of the mark over several years. Ignoring the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com”, the Domain Name differs from the Mark only by the addition of the letters “vn”, the International Organization for Standardization (“ISO”) abbreviation for Viet Nam. In the Panel’s view, the addition of these letters does not detract from the confusing similarity of the Domain Name to the Mark. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Complainant has made out a strong prima facie case that the Respondent could have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. The Respondent is not authorized by the Complainant to use its Mark for a Domain Name, or to hold itself out as “Supercell Vietnam”, or to provide the services it offers from the Website using not only the Mark but also other registered trademarks of the Complainant in respect of the names of its games. Furthermore, in the Panel’s view, the use of the Domain Name for a website offering for sale hacks or cheats for the Complainant’s computer games cannot give rise to any rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name.

The Respondent has chosen not to respond to the Complaint to explain its use of the Domain Name or to take any other steps to counter the prima facie case established by the Complainant. In the circumstances, the Panel finds that the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

In light of the nature of the Domain Name, the Respondent clearly had the Complainant and its rights in the Mark in mind when it registered the Domain Name, particularly since the Respondent claims to be “Supercell Vietnam”. The Panel considers that the Respondent registered the Domain Name for commercial gain with a view to taking unfair advantage of the Complainant’s rights in the Mark, initially by confusing Internet users into believing that the Domain Name was being operated by or authorized by the Complainant and then when users visit the Website by offering for sale unauthorized services in respect of the Complainant’s computer games. The Panel is in no doubt that this amounts to paradigm bad faith registration and use for the purposes of the Policy.

Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

7. Decision

For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the Domain Name, <supercellvn.com>, be transferred to the Complainant.

Ian Lowe
Sole Panelist
Date: December 29, 2017