Re-Logic, Inc. successfully secured the transfer of four domains, including merchterraria.store and terrariaofficial.shop, after proving that Willowbank Capital used the sites to sell unauthorized merchandise featuring the TERRARIA trademark. The panel found the respondent’s activities constituted bad faith, resulting in a full transfer of the disputed assets.
Case Snapshot
| Case Number | D2026-3985 |
|---|---|
| Complainant | Re-Logic, Inc. |
| Respondent | Willowbank Capital , WBC |
| Disputed Domain | merchterraria.storeterrariaofficial.shop |
| Threat Tactic | Fake Stores |
| Decision Date | 2026-10-28 |
| Panelist | Mario Soerensen Garcia |
| Outcome | Transfer |
| Official Source | https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?case=D2026-3985 |
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 EvaluationOperational Risks of Unauthorized Merchandising and Traffic Diversion
The use of domains like ‘merchterraria.store’ and ‘terrariaofficial.shop’ by Willowbank Capital highlights a significant threat to Re-Logic, Inc.’s brand equity and customer trust. By mirroring the company’s official branding, these e-commerce sites misled consumers into believing they were purchasing authorized merchandise. The tactical use of domain redirection—where ‘merchterraria.store’ forced traffic toward ‘terrariaofficial.shop’—served to centralize illicit sales operations while obfuscating the infrastructure behind the impersonation. Such tactics capitalize on the goodwill of the ‘TERRARIA’ trademark to facilitate the sale of unauthorized goods, directly intercepting potential revenue streams intended for the original rights holder.
Beyond the immediate financial impact of lost sales, this activity poses a severe reputational risk for Re-Logic. Unauthorized retailers lack oversight regarding product quality and consumer safety, leaving the brand vulnerable to associations with substandard or counterfeit items that do not meet the standards expected by the gaming community. The reliance on privacy services to mask the identity of the domain registrants further complicates the enforcement process, as seen when the respondent failed to participate in the UDRP proceedings. These tactics demonstrate how bad-faith actors leverage the internet to create a veneer of legitimacy, forcing rights holders to utilize formal arbitration to dismantle infrastructure designed to exploit intellectual property for profit.
Panel Reasoning: Evaluating Unauthorized Merchandising and Bad Faith
Under UDRP paragraph 4(a), the panel assessed Re-Logic’s claims against Willowbank Capital by evaluating three foundational pillars: confusing similarity, lack of legitimate interests, and bad faith registration and use. The panel confirmed that the disputed domain names, such as merchterraria.store, were confusingly similar to the complainant’s established TERRARIA trademark, which has been registered in the United States since 2012. Because the complainant provided clear evidence of its prior rights and the respondent failed to file a response, the panel concluded that the respondent had no rights or legitimate interests in the domains, as there was no indication of fair use or authorized commercial activity.
The analysis regarding bad faith centered on the respondent’s use of traffic diversion tactics. Specifically, the evidence demonstrated that the respondent operated at least two websites, one of which redirected traffic to another, to facilitate the sale of unauthorized products featuring TERRARIA iconography. Such behavior, characterized by the panel as passing off, directly exploits the complainant’s brand equity to deceive consumers into believing the goods were authorized by the gaming company. This strategic use of domain names for e-commerce impersonation constitutes clear evidence of bad faith under the Policy.
Ultimately, the lack of a respondent defense significantly streamlined the panel’s decision-making process, as the complainant’s evidence of trademark ownership and the documented unauthorized commercial use went uncontested. The panel’s finding reinforces the principle that domain registrations intended to profit from a brand owner’s reputation via fake shops will be viewed as bad-faith activity. This outcome provides a critical precedent for IP professionals managing gaming-related brand assets, underscoring the efficacy of the UDRP as a mechanism for reclaiming assets hijacked for illicit commercial operations.
Strategic Analysis: Combating E-commerce Impersonation Through Evidence-Backed UDRP Filings
The success of Re-Logic, Inc. in Case D2026-3985 was anchored in a comprehensive evidentiary dossier that clearly linked the disputed domain names to a coordinated effort to deceive consumers. By submitting specific documentation—including Annexes 3 and 4—the complainant provided visual evidence of the respondent’s unauthorized use of the TERRARIA mark, game characters, and proprietary iconography. This tangible proof was essential for demonstrating that the disputed domains were not merely parked but were actively utilized to facilitate the sale of unauthorized merchandise, thereby establishing a clear nexus between the respondent’s activities and the disruption of the complainant’s commercial interests.
Furthermore, the strategy effectively utilized the respondent’s lack of defense to highlight the absence of legitimate interests. By emphasizing that its trademark registrations dated back to 2012, Re-Logic established clear priority over the respondent’s 2026 domain registrations. The complainant’s approach of linking the traffic diversion from ‘merchterraria.store’ to ‘terrariaofficial.shop’ served as a persuasive argument for bad faith registration and use. This technical breakdown of the respondent’s funnel allowed the panel to quickly conclude that the site was designed to induce internet users into believing the storefront was an official or authorized distribution channel, confirming the necessity of a transfer order to mitigate further brand dilution.
Practical Recommendations
- Prioritize the collection of visual evidence, such as screenshots of checkout pages and product listings featuring brand iconography, to demonstrate ‘passing off’ and bad-faith commercial use.
- Utilize domain-to-domain traffic diversion as evidence of a coordinated network, strengthening arguments for ‘bad faith’ registration by showing the respondent is actively funneling users to unauthorized storefronts.
- Map trademark registration dates against domain WHOIS creation dates to establish clear priority, emphasizing the lack of legitimate interest when domains are registered years after the brand has established market presence.
- Proactively monitor new domain registrations using common brand-plus-keyword combinations (e.g., ‘merch’ + brand name) to enable rapid UDRP filing before the respondent can build significant traffic.
- Leverage the absence of a respondent’s reply as a strategic opportunity to request an expedited decision based solely on the merits of your submitted evidence, as panels typically draw negative inferences from such silence.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
Why were domains like ‘merchterraria.store’ and ‘terrariaofficial.shop’ considered confusingly similar to Re-Logic’s trademark?
The panel determined the domains were confusingly similar because they incorporated the ‘TERRARIA’ mark in its entirety alongside descriptive terms like ‘merch’ and ‘official,’ which would lead internet users to mistakenly believe the websites were authorized by or affiliated with the Complainant.
How did Re-Logic demonstrate that the respondent lacked legitimate rights to these domains?
Re-Logic established that the Respondent, Willowbank Capital, was using the domains for unauthorized commercial activity—specifically, selling merchandise featuring protected characters and iconography—and that the Respondent had no authorization, license, or fair-use justification to utilize the TERRARIA mark.
What evidence proved the respondent acted in bad faith?
Bad faith was proven by the fact that the disputed domains were used to create a network of fake shops that diverted traffic between one another to sell unauthorized products, combined with the fact that the Respondent failed to respond to the complaint to provide any justification for their conduct.
What was the practical tactical outcome for Re-Logic in this UDRP proceeding?
By leveraging the UDRP process, Re-Logic successfully secured the transfer of all four disputed domain names, effectively dismantling the respondent’s fake e-commerce storefronts and preventing further revenue loss and brand dilution.
Found a fake shop using your brand?
Protect your brand revenue and consumer trust. Just like Re-Logic’s successful action against unauthorized merchandise storefronts, you can leverage UDRP proceedings to reclaim domains used for brand impersonation and traffic diversion.
This case note is for informational purposes only and is not legal advice.
