InnerSloth LLC successfully recovered the domain amongusmultiplayer.com from Dylan Chen through a WIPO UDRP proceeding. The respondent operated an unauthorized gaming site that mimicked the developer’s official trademarked game, resulting in a mandatory transfer of the domain.
Case Snapshot
| Case Number | D2026-3676 |
|---|---|
| Complainant | InnerSloth LLC |
| Respondent | Dylan Chen |
| Disputed Domain | amongusmultiplayer.com |
| Threat Tactic | Corporate Impersonation |
| Decision Date | 2026-09-30 |
| Panelist | Pablo A. Palazzi |
| Outcome | Transfer |
| Official Source | https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?case=D2026-3676 |
Facing Unauthorized Domain Registrations or Brand Abuse?
Our domain dispute attorneys represent trademark owners and businesses worldwide before WIPO, Forum (NAF), and CAC. Explore our Domain Name Disputes and Enforcement & Takedowns services, or request a free case evaluation.
Request Case EvaluationGaming Brand Impersonation and Traffic Diversion Risks
The registration of amongusmultiplayer.com highlights the severe reputational and commercial risks posed by unauthorized gaming platforms that leverage established brand assets. By reproducing InnerSloth LLC’s trademarked ‘AMONG US’ word mark and utilizing the proprietary ‘Crewmate’ character, the respondent created a high-fidelity impersonation intended to divert unsuspecting users. Such tactics not only dilute the value of legitimate IP but also force brand owners into reactive legal postures to mitigate potential user confusion and unauthorized access to game-branded digital environments. The site’s ability to offer a ‘playable version’ of the game demonstrates a sophisticated level of infringement that undermines the integrity of the official user experience.
The use of privacy-shielding services by the respondent during the domain registration process serves as a common barrier to rapid enforcement, complicating efforts to identify and contact infringing actors before they can scale their activities. This case underscores the necessity for gaming companies to implement proactive domain monitoring and early-detection protocols rather than relying solely on post-launch enforcement. When unauthorized entities successfully establish a digital presence that mimics official channels, the resulting brand degradation can be swift, particularly when users are exposed to unofficial, uncontrolled versions of a developer’s software. Businesses must treat the oversight of digital assets as a core component of their brand safety strategy to prevent the proliferation of these unauthorized and potentially deceptive platforms.
Panel Reasoning: Navigating Confusing Similarity, Legitimate Interests, and Bad Faith
The UDRP panel’s assessment in this matter followed the established tripartite framework, beginning with the threshold requirement of confusing similarity. The panel found that the disputed domain name amongusmultiplayer.com was confusingly similar to the complainant’s registered AMONG US word and figurative marks. By confirming that the domain name incorporates the complainant’s trademark in its entirety, the panel upheld the standing of InnerSloth LLC to pursue the action. This analysis emphasizes that the first element functions primarily as a formal standing requirement, grounded in a straightforward comparison between the protected trademark and the infringing domain string.
Regarding the second element, the panel examined whether the respondent possessed rights or legitimate interests in the domain. Although the burden of proof typically rests with the complainant, the panel recognized that the respondent’s use of the site to impersonate the developer—specifically by reproducing the AMONG US mark, displaying the iconic ‘Crewmate’ character, and offering a playable version of the game—precluded any claim of legitimate interest. The panel underscored that such unauthorized use for the purpose of passing off cannot confer rights or legitimate interests, establishing that the respondent’s activities were fundamentally incompatible with the Policy’s provisions for legitimate usage.
The final determination addressed the registration and use of the domain in bad faith under paragraph 4(a)(iii). The panel noted that the respondent’s deliberate mimicry of the complainant’s game environment and characters served as clear evidence of an intent to deceive users and divert traffic for the respondent’s own gain. By failing to provide a response to the complainant’s contentions, the respondent effectively allowed the panel to find that the domain was both registered and used in bad faith. This conclusion serves as a critical indicator for brand owners, highlighting how unauthorized, commercially motivated impersonation platforms can be successfully neutralized through the UDRP process.
From a strategic perspective, this decision confirms the effectiveness of the UDRP as a reactive tool when third parties leverage privacy services to hide their identities while infringing on well-known gaming intellectual property. The panel’s reasoning illustrates that even in cases of default by the respondent, the evidence of actual use—such as hosting a playable, trademark-infringing game—is sufficient to substantiate a finding of bad faith and justify the mandatory transfer of the domain name to the rightful trademark owner.
Strategy Analysis: Proving Trademark Impersonation in Gaming Disputes
The success of InnerSloth LLC in this matter rested on the high-fidelity alignment between the Respondent’s infringing content and the Complainant’s established intellectual property. By documenting that the website at amongusmultiplayer.com not only incorporated the AMONG US word mark but also reproduced proprietary visual assets such as the ‘Crewmate’ character, the Complainant presented an irrefutable case of consumer confusion. This evidence transformed the dispute from a standard domain ownership disagreement into a clear-cut case of unauthorized commercial impersonation. The persuasive weight of this visual evidence, combined with the Complainant’s robust global portfolio of trademark registrations, provided the Panel with sufficient grounds to conclude that the Respondent possessed no rights or legitimate interests in the domain.
From a strategic standpoint, InnerSloth LLC benefited significantly from the Respondent’s failure to engage in the process, though the case was built on a proactive foundation of documented brand equity. By framing the dispute through the lens of industry accolades and established trademark rights, the Complainant reinforced the narrative that the domain was explicitly designed to trade on the brand’s reputation for financial or traffic diversion. This approach underscores a critical business lesson: in the digital gaming sector, the speed at which developers can document the unauthorized use of ‘playable’ assets is central to successful UDRP enforcement. The outcome reaffirms that when brand owners provide comprehensive evidence of bad-faith use, they can effectively leverage the UDRP to secure the transfer of domains even when the registrant hides behind privacy services.
Practical Recommendations
- Implement a proactive domain monitoring service that specifically alerts for new registrations containing core brand keywords coupled with high-intent gaming terms like ‘multiplayer’ or ‘play’.
- Utilize automated WHOIS verification and DNS intelligence tools to identify and map clusters of domain registrations that use identical privacy proxy services to conceal ownership.
- Develop a rapid-response evidence collection workflow that captures site screenshots, source code, and live game session behavior immediately upon discovery to support future UDRP filings.
- Review and expand the trademark registration portfolio to explicitly include figurative character marks—such as the ‘Crewmate’—to simplify the burden of proving confusing similarity in future disputes.
- Proactively perform technical audits of third-party domains mimicking official game assets to identify potential malware distribution vectors, providing actionable security intelligence for both legal enforcement and customer safety notices.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
Why was the domain ‘amongusmultiplayer.com’ considered confusingly similar to InnerSloth LLC’s trademarks?
The panel found the domain name confusingly similar because it incorporated the ‘AMONG US’ word mark in its entirety, which is a protected trademark owned by InnerSloth LLC for its video game and related entertainment services.
What evidence did the panel use to determine that the respondent lacked legitimate interests in the domain?
The respondent failed to provide any response to the complaint. Furthermore, the panel found that the site was used for ‘passing off’ by reproducing official game marks and characters to offer a playable game, an unauthorized activity that cannot confer rights or legitimate interests.
How did InnerSloth LLC prove the domain was registered and used in bad faith?
Bad faith was demonstrated by the respondent’s use of the domain to mirror the complainant’s game assets and ‘Crewmate’ character to attract users. This deliberate attempt to trade on the reputation of the ‘AMONG US’ mark for commercial or traffic-diversion purposes satisfied the UDRP criteria for bad faith registration and use.
What is the primary practical outcome of this UDRP proceeding?
As a result of the finding that the domain was registered and used in bad faith to impersonate InnerSloth LLC, the panel ordered the mandatory transfer of ‘amongusmultiplayer.com’ to the complainant, thereby mitigating the risk of further brand dilution.
Facing corporate impersonation through a domain?
Unauthorized sites mimicking your digital assets can erode brand trust and confuse your community. Ensure your IP protection strategy is proactive before your brand is targeted by bad actors.
This case note is for informational purposes only and is not legal advice.
