A UDRP was filed against Playhop.io by Y. E. Hub Armenia LLC, a subsidiary of Russia’s Yandex NV.
The Complainant operates the official Playhop.com platform and holds an international trademark for PLAYHOP registered in 2022 across multiple jurisdictions, including Viet Nam where the Respondent is located.
The Respondent argued that playhop is a generic combination of the words “play” and “hop,” chosen independently for a gaming project, and that his site offered genuine free online games monetized through ads. However, the WIPO Panelist found these claims unconvincing. The website at playhop.io displayed a layout and content nearly identical to the Complainant’s official site and linked to other domains, such as playhop-game.com and playhop.games, featuring the same copied branding.
The Panel determined that the Respondent had clear knowledge of the Complainant’s PLAYHOP mark, which was registered in Viet Nam before the domain’s 2024 registration, and used the name deliberately to attract users for commercial gain through confusion. Such imitation and monetized redirection were held to be classic evidence of bad faith.
Final decision: Transfer was granted and the domain playhop.io was ordered transferred to the Complainant.
Copyright © 2025 DomainGang.com · All Rights Reserved.ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER – ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Y. E. Hub Armenia LLC v. DANG PHUC VIET Case No. DIO2025-00371. The Parties
The Complainant is Y. E. Hub Armenia LLC, Armenia, represented Brand Monitor Legal Limited Liability Company, Russian Federation.
The Respondent is DANG PHUC VIET, Viet Nam.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name playhop.io is registered with NameCheap, Inc. (the “Registrar”).
3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on September 12, 2025. On September 12, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On September 12, 2025, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on September 15, 2025, 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 amendment to the Complaint on September 18, 2025.
The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the .IO Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”), the Rules for .IO Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for .IO 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 October 3, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was October 23, 2025. The Response was filed with the Center on
October 2, 2025.The Center appointed Phillip V. Marano as the sole panelist in this matter on October 17, 2025. 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
The Complainant is Yandex Europe Hub Armenia LLC, a subsidiary of Yandex NV, a Russian multinational Internet technology company. The Complainant offers information about its video gaming services on its official playhop.com website. The Complainant owns a valid and subsisting international registration for the PLAYHOP trademark (Int. Reg. No. 1725313), registered on December 6, 2022, with designations in numerous countries, including in China, India, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, the Philippines, and Viet Nam.
According to the Respondent’s vietdp.com website, which is hyperlinked within the website content associated with the disputed domain name, “PhucViet is an independent videogames development studio with roots in online games since 2005” which has “built 400+ HTML5 and Flash games for clients like Kongregate, Crazy Games, Armor Games, Y8, Agame, GamePix, Game Distribution and more.” The Respondent registered the disputed domain name on September 9, 2024. At the time of this Complaint, the disputed domain name resolved to a website titled “Top 1001 Best Free Online Games PlayHop.io”. The Respondent’s website offers visitors the ability to play free online video games. The Respondent’s website is ostensibly monetized through pay-per-click ads serviced through a mobile app marketing affiliate program.
The Respondent’s website contains numerous hyperlinks to additional domains, including playhop-game.com and playhop.games, which feature substantially similar naming conventions and website content.5. Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
The Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the disputed domain name.
Notably, the Complainant asserts ownership of the PLAYHOP trademark and has adduced evidence of trademark registration, dated back to December 6, 2022. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s PLAYHOP trademark, according to the Complainant, because it integrates the Complainant’s trademark in its entirety, as a dominant element.
The Complainant further asserts that the Respondent lacks any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name because: “The Respondent appears to be offering goods or services for sale on its website under the Complainant’s ‘PLAYHOP’ trademark”; “the sole purpose of the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name is to engage in commercial transactions on a website under the disputed domain name”; the Respondent has “intentional[ly] adopt[ed] or adapt[ed] a well-known trademark for its own profit”; “the Complainant has granted no rights, permissions, or licenses to the Respondent”; and “there is no indication that the Respondent has been commonly known by the name ‘PLAYHOP’ or any similar variation thereof.”
The Complainant argues that the Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith for numerous reasons, including: “the Respondent had actual or constructive notice of the Complainant’s trademark when it registered and used the disputed domain name” and “the Respondent is intentionally attempting to generate confusion and attract Internet users seeking the Complainant’s products and services for his own commercial gain.”
B. Respondent
The Respondent asserts that they “selected and registered the disputed domain name in good faith for a legitimate startup gaming project and did not target the Complainant’s trademark.”
With respect to the first element of the Policy, the Respondent asserts that, “The [disputed domain name] consists of the generic and descriptive words ‘play’ and ‘hop’. The Respondent selected this name independently to reflect the nature of a gaming platform (play + hop = fun activity). The Complainant has not demonstrated that ‘PLAYHOP’ is a globally distinctive or well-known mark that would give rise to confusion. The Respondent had no knowledge of the Complainant or its domain playhop.com at the time of registration.”
With respect to the second element of the Policy, the Respondent asserts that, “The Respondent registered the disputed domain name on 12 September 2024 for a bona fide startup project providing free online HTML5 and Unity games. The website has been operational since the date of registration, offering genuine gaming services to users. The Respondent has not attempted to sell, rent, or transfer the domain name to the Complainant or any third party. The Respondent’s use of the domain name is legitimate, descriptive, and non-infringing.”
And finally, with respect to the third element of the Policy, the Respondent asserts that, “The Respondent had no knowledge of the Complainant’s trademarks or domain prior to registering [the disputed domain name]. The Respondent is based in Viet Nam and operates independently. There is no evidence that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to confuse users or exploit the Complainant’s reputation. The domain was registered and has been used in good faith for the Respondent’s own project.”
In support of these arguments, the Respondent submitted screenshot evidence of the WhoIs record for the disputed domain name, and screenshot evidence of the Respondent’s website.
6. Discussion and Findings
To succeed in its Complaint, the Complainant must establish in accordance with paragraph 4(a) of the Policy:
1. the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights;
2. the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and
3. the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. The standing (or threshold) test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition, (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.7. 1
Ownership of a nationally or regionally registered trademark serves as prima facie evidence that the Complainant has trademark rights for the purposes of standing to file this Complaint. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1. The Complainant submitted evidence that the PLAYHOP trademark has been registered in numerous countries as of December 6, 2022, nearly two years before the disputed domain name was
1Given the similarities between the Policy and the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “UDRP”), the Panel will refer to cases decided under both the Policy and the UDRP, and notably the WIPO Overview 3.0, if relevant to this proceeding.
registered by the Respondent. Thus, the Panel finds that the Complainant’s rights in the PLAYHOP trademark have been established pursuant to the first element of the Policy.
The only remaining question under the first element of the Policy is whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s PLAYHOP trademark. In this case, the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s PLAYHOP trademark because, disregarding the .io country-code Top-Level Domain (“ccTLD”), the entirety of the mark is reproduced within the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7. (“This test typically involves a side-by-side comparison of the domain name and the textual components of the relevant trademark to assess whether the mark is recognizable within the domain name … [I]n cases where a domain name incorporates the entirety of a trademark, or where at least a dominant feature of the relevant mark is recognizable in the domain name, the domain name will normally be considered confusingly similar […]”). ccTLDs, such as .io in the disputed domain name, are generally viewed as a standard registration requirement and are disregarded under the first element. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.11.1.
The Panel finds the first element of the Policy has been established.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances in which the Respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name. Although the overall burden of proof in proceedings due to the Policy is on the complainant, panels have recognized that proving a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the difficult task of “proving a negative”, requiring information that is often primarily within the knowledge or control of the respondent. As such, where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name (although the burden of proof always remains on the complainant). If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.1.
The Respondent has asserted that the disputed domain name consists of the generic and descriptive words “play” and “hop” and that the Respondent selected the disputed domain name, absent any knowledge of the Complainant, “to reflect the nature of a gaming platform (play + hop = fun activity).” However, the Panel does not view these arguments as credible in view of the factual record. Specifically, while the word “hop” may describe a “fun activity”, it does not describe the online Internet gaming services offered by the Complainant and the Respondent. And, while the words “play” and “hop” are of course both words found in the dictionary, the combined term “playhop” is neither a dictionary term nor a common phrase in which the Respondent could have any legitimate interest when used in connection with online gaming services that directly compete with the Complainant and infringe the Complainant’s PLAYHOP trademark. WIPO Overview 3.0, Section 2.10.1, citing Gibson, LLC v. Jeanette Valencia, WIPO Case No. D2010-0490 (respondent claims that the term “Modern Cowgirl” is a descriptive term and therefore that she has a legitimate interest in using this descriptive term for her website. Although that assertion might be accurate with respect to a website that blogs about modern cowgirls, it is not true with respect to the portion of the site that advertised the sale of goods under a name that infringes complainant’s registered trademark. A trademarked descriptive term may be used for its descriptive value, but it is not legitimate to use the term “because of its value as a trademark.”).
In addition, the Complainant’s PLAYHOP trademark was registered in Viet Nam, where the Respondent is located, nearly two years prior to the Respondent’s registration or use of the disputed domain name. The overall look and layout of the Respondent’s website content bears a striking similarity to the official
playhop.com website content published by the Complainant. And, when the Panel visited the Respondent’s website, it was clear that it was monetized with ads and that it was hyperlinked to numerous additional “playhop”-formative domain names, such as playhop-game.com and playhop.games, which also resolved to substantially similar website content. All the foregoing strongly suggests that theRespondent had actual knowledge of the Complainant, the Complainant’s PLAYHOP trademark, and the Complainant’s online gaming services offered through its official playhop.com domain name and website.
Therefore, having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent has not rebutted the Complainant’s prima facie showing and has not come forward with any relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise.
The Panel finds the second element of the Policy has been established.
C. Registered or Used in Bad Faith
Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy proscribes the following non-exhaustive circumstances as evidence of bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name:
i. Circumstances indicating that the Respondent has registered or the Respondent has acquired the disputed domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the disputed domain name registration to the Complainant who is the owner of the trademark to a competitor of that Complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of the Respondent’s documented out of pocket costs directly related to the disputed domain name; or
ii. the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that the Respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or
iii. the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
iv. by using the disputed domain name, the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the Respondent’s website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent’s website or location or of a product or service on the Respondent’s website or location.
The Respondent has asserted that they operate independently in Viet Name and “had no knowledge of the Complainant’s trademarks or domain prior to registering [the disputed domain name].” The Respondent has further asserted that there “is no evidence that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to confuse users or exploit the Complainant’s reputation.” However, as discussed above, the factual record does not support these arguments by the Respondent. The salient facts include: the Complainant’s trademark registration in Viet Nam, which predated the Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name by several months; the striking similarity of the overall look and layout of the Respondent’s website content versus the official
playhop.com website content published by the Complainant; and hyperlinks between the Respondent’s website and numerous additional “playhop”-formative domain names, such as playhop-game.com and
playhop.games, which also resolved to substantially similar website content ostensibly published by the Respondent.Moreover, use of a domain name incorporating a complainant’s trademark to redirect Internet users to the respondent’s website, where services are offered in direct competition with that complainant, is strong evidence of bad faith under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.1.4, (“Panels have moreover found the following types of evidence to support a finding that a respondent has registered a domain name to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark: … seeking to cause confusion for respondent’s commercial benefit, even if unsuccessful … the lack of a respondent’s own rights to or legitimate interests in a domain name [or] redirecting the domain name to a different respondent-owned website…”). Here, the disputed domain name misappropriates the Complainant’s identical PLAYHOP trademark and resolves to the Respondent’s website
that contains online gaming services and website content that are strikingly similar to the Complainant’s official playhop.io website content. Accordingly, the Panel finds that use of the disputed domain name will undoubtedly divert potential customers from the Complainant’s business to the website under the disputed domain name by attracting Internet users who mistakenly believe that the disputed domain name is affiliated with the Complainant, and which may further mistakenly believe that the online games offered on this website are authentic games offered by the Complainant, or by an entity affiliated to the Complainant.
The Panel finds the third element of the Policy has been established.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 disputed domain name playhop.io be transferred to the Complainant.
/Phillip V. Marano/ Phillip V. Marano Sole Panelist
Date: November 4, 2025
