Gaijin Games Kft. successfully secured the transfer of the disputed domains activemattermerch.shop and activematter.game from respondent Luong Van Thanh. The respondent had set up an unauthorized online storefront displaying official game artwork and logos to sell fake ACTIVE MATTER merchandise. The WIPO panel ordered the domains transferred after the respondent failed to file a response to the dispute.
Case Snapshot
| Case Number | D2025-4625 |
|---|---|
| Complainant | Gaijin Games Kft. |
| Respondent | Luong Van Thanh |
| Disputed Domain | activemattermerch.shop |
| Threat Tactic | Fake Stores |
| Decision Date | 2026-01-07 |
| Panelist | Iris Quadrio |
| Outcome | Transfer |
| Official Source | https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?case=D2025-4625 |
Reputational and Commercial Risks of Exploitative Merchandising Storefronts
The tactical registration of domain names like activemattermerch.shop immediately following a product’s launch—such as the Early Access debut of the game Active Matter on September 9, 2025—represents a coordinated threat designed to exploit peak marketing momentum. By establishing an unauthorized digital storefront that incorporates a protected trademark with high-intent keywords, bad actors systematically intercept search queries and divert enthusiastic consumers. The immediate replication of copyrighted logos, screenshots, and promotional artwork on the site falsely conveys a licensed retail partnership, exposing brand owners to serious trademark dilution and potential commercial siphoning.
Furthermore, the unauthorized deployment of game assets to simulate an official retail channel weaponizes a publisher’s own intellectual property to manufacture consumer trust. Operating a lookalike web shop to sell unauthorized merchandise does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods, but instead functions as an deceptive commercial operation. For brand owners, this creates severe vulnerability: even without documented evidence of consumer purchase losses, the existence of an unvetted store claiming official affiliation degrades the exclusivity of the brand and risks associating the trademark with substandard goods or unfulfilled digital transactions.
Analysis of Failed Defense: Panelist Findings on Identity, Legitimate Interests, and Intentional Confusion
In evaluating the first UDRP element, Sole Panelist Iris Quadrio verified that Gaijin Games Kft. established clear rights in the ACTIVE MATTER trademark through multiple registrations, including European Union Reg. No. 018571549 dating back to March 18, 2022. The disputed domains, activemattermerch.shop and activematter.game, incorporate the Complainant’s mark in its entirety. Under established UDRP precedent, the addition of the generic term ‘merch’ and the respective generic top-level domains (gTLDs) ‘.shop’ and ‘.game’ does not negate confusing similarity. The Respondent, Luong Van Thanh, offered no response or arguments to contest these findings, leaving the Complainant’s assertions regarding confusing similarity entirely unchallenged.
Regarding the second element, the Respondent’s failure to file a response precluded any possibility of demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domains. The Complainant successfully established a prima facie case by showing that the Respondent is not commonly known by the names, has no trademark rights of his own, and received no license or authorization. Crucially, the panel found that utilizing activemattermerch.shop to host an unauthorized storefront—complete with copied screenshots, logos, and artwork from the video game—does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services. The deliberate replication of copyrighted brand assets to simulate an official licensing relationship undermines any claim of fair use or legitimate business activity.
The bad faith analysis under the third element focused on the rapid exploit behavior following the game’s launch, a narrative the Respondent failed to rebut. The disputed domain activemattermerch.shop was registered on September 23, 2025, shortly after the ACTIVE MATTER video game entered Early Access on September 9, 2025. The panelist determined that the registration of these domains so close to the launch, combined with the subsequent deployment of a fake merchandise shop, proved the Respondent was fully aware of the brand. By intentionally attempting to attract internet users for commercial gain through a simulated association with the Complainant, the Respondent’s conduct aligned precisely with the bad faith criteria outlined in Paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.
Failed Defense Review: Strategic Proof of Direct Impersonation and Rapid Exploitation
The Complainant’s strategy succeeded primarily due to the immediate preservation of website evidence and a clear timeline demonstrating opportunistic registration. By securing screenshots of the active website at activemattermerch.shop showing the unauthorized reproduction of ACTIVE MATTER logos, artwork, and game screenshots, Gaijin Games Kft. established clear-cut corporate impersonation. This empirical proof of a fake retail channel falsely presenting itself as an officially licensed merchandise store left no room for the Respondent to claim a bona fide offering of goods. This outcome demonstrates the absolute necessity of capturing forensic website evidence immediately upon discovery, particularly when dealing with transient storefront configurations that can be easily altered or taken offline.
Furthermore, the Complainant effectively leveraged the close temporal proximity between the video game’s Early Access launch on September 9, 2025, and the registration of the disputed domains on September 23, 2025. This two-week window strongly supported the panel’s finding of targeted bad faith registration. The Respondent, Luong Van Thanh, failed to submit any response to the Complaint, leaving the panelist, Iris Quadrio, with no evidence of any legitimate business activities or trademark rights. By highlighting the coordinated acquisition of the brand-plus-keyword domain activemattermerch.shop alongside the direct match activematter.game, the Complainant successfully exposed a clear pattern of commercial exploitation that the Respondent could not rebut.
Practical Recommendations
- Establish proactive domain monitoring windows around major brand milestones—such as ‘Early Access’ or beta launches—to detect and address bad-faith registrations (like ‘activemattermerch.shop’) within the critical first weeks of public release.
- Securely document and timestamp comprehensive visual evidence of unauthorized web stores, specifically capturing any use of copyrighted artwork, game screenshots, and official logos to quickly build a robust prima facie case of impersonation and bad faith.
- Execute defensive registrations for high-risk top-level domains (such as ‘.game’ or ‘.shop’) and brand-plus-keyword combinations (e.g., ‘[Brand]merch’) prior to public product launches to preemptively block opportunistic registrations.
- Incorporate detailed evidence of copyright infringement within the UDRP complaint to directly refute any potential claim of ‘bona fide offering of goods’ by demonstrating that the respondent’s site relies entirely on stolen intellectual property to simulate an official partnership.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
Why were the domains ‘activemattermerch.shop’ and ‘activematter.game’ considered confusingly similar to the Complainant’s brand?
The WIPO panel found that the disputed domains incorporated the ‘ACTIVE MATTER’ trademark in its entirety. By appending terms like ‘merch’ and using the ‘.game’ TLD, the Respondent created a high likelihood of confusion, as users would logically associate these domains with the official video game properties of Gaijin Games Kft.
How did the Respondent fail to establish any legitimate rights or interests in the disputed domains?
The Respondent provided no response to the UDRP complaint. Furthermore, the Panel determined that operating a website that misappropriates copyrighted game assets, logos, and screenshots to masquerade as an ‘officially licensed’ store does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods, thus negating any claim to legitimate interest.
What evidence was sufficient to prove the Respondent acted in bad faith?
Bad faith was demonstrated by the Respondent’s intentional attempt to attract internet users for commercial gain. By setting up an unauthorized storefront that mimicked an official retail channel shortly after the game’s Early Access launch, the Respondent sought to exploit the reputation and goodwill of the ACTIVE MATTER brand.
What was the tactical outcome of the Respondent’s failure to respond to the WIPO proceedings?
The Respondent’s failure to file a formal response resulted in a default notification by the WIPO Center on December 12, 2025. Without a defense, the Panel was able to proceed based on the evidence provided by Gaijin Games Kft., ultimately ordering the transfer of both disputed domain names to the Complainant.
Found a fake shop using your brand?
Unauthorized merchandise stores often pop up during launch periods to siphon revenue and damage brand reputation. If you are seeing copycat sites mimicking your official assets, our team can help you assess your UDRP eligibility.
This case note is for informational purposes only and is not legal advice.
