The Complainant is Star Stable Entertainment AB of Stockholm, Sweden, represented by BrandIT Legal AB, Sweden.
The Respondent is Victor Arreaga of Puerto Rico, United States of America ("United States") / WhoisGuard Protected, WhoisGuard, Inc. of Panama City, Panama. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with eNom (the "Registrar"). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on December 18, 2015. On December 18, 2015, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On the same day, 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 December 21, 2015 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 December 22, 2015.
The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to the 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 proceeding commenced on January 6, 2016. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was January 26, 2016. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on January 27, 2016.
The Center appointed Steven A. Maier as the sole panelist in this matter on February 3, 2016. 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 a private company registered in Sweden. It is the operator of an online horse adventure game named "Star Stable" in which players explore a virtual island on their horse and take care of their horse. The Complainant sells "Star Coins" as currency for use by players in connection with the game.
The Complainant is the registrant of numerous trademarks in various jurisdictions for both the word mark STAR STABLE and a figurative mark comprising a stylized "Star Stable" device (the "Device"). The Complainant's trademarks include:
- United States trademark number 3814190 for STAR STABLE registered on July 6, 2010 in International Class 9.
- Community Trade Mark number 008696775 for STAR STABLE registered on April 5, 2010 in International Class 9.
- Community Trade Mark number 014171326 for the Device registered on September 21, 2015 in International Classes 9, 16, 25 and 41.
The disputed domain name was registered on October 16, 2015.
The Complainant has submitted evidence by way of screen shots that the disputed domain name has been used to redirect to a website at "www." which is headed with a device substantially the same as the Design and the words "Star Stable Hack Online". The website refers extensively to the Complainant's game and offers "Unlimited Star Coins". It includes the statement: "A premium membership costs a lot of money instead star stable players use our Star Stable Hack online for obtaining unlimited star coins." 5. Parties' Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant states that it has over six million registered users and that it is active in 180 countries and in 11 languages. It is the registrant of domain names including and which it uses to promote its games and merchandise. It states that it has a significant presence on various social media platforms including Facebook, YouTube, Instagram and Twitter, and that it considers it extremely important to provide a safe and secure environment for its users. The Complainant states that it employs a third party social monitoring supplier in this regard, which moderates all chat, prevents the sharing of personal information and filters out unacceptable words.
The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights. In particular, the Complainant states that the disputed domain name consists of its trademark STAR STABLE with the additional term "hack" which does not distinguish the disputed domain name from the Complainant's trademark.
The Complainant submits that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.
The Complainant submits that the Respondent does not own the STAR STABLE trademark and is not known by the name "Star Stable". It submits that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name to redirect to the website referred to above, which uses the Complainant's copyright images, replicates the look and feel of the Complainant's own websites and includes a live chat forum (although this latter element does not appear from the screen shots submitted by the Complainant). The Complainant adds that use of the website may be hazardous to users and damaging to the Complainant's own reputation. The Complainant contends that the Respondent's actions in this regard cannot constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services.
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
The Complainant states that the Respondent's name was originally hidden behind a "privacy shield". It adds that it attempted to contact the Respondent via a "cease and desist" letter in November 2015 and a subsequent reminder, both of which were ignored.
The Complainant repeats that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name for the purpose of a commercial website which misappropriates the Complainant's trademark and invites users to register for free Star Coins. The website fails to indicate the lack of any relationship with the Complainant and, on the contrary, creates a strong likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trademark and services. Therefore, by using the disputed domain name, the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract Internet users to its website, for commercial gain, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of its website or of a product or service on that website.
The Complainant requests a transfer of the disputed domain name. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
In order to succeed in the Complaint, the Complainant is required to show that all three of the elements set out under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy are present. Those elements are:
(i) that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;
(ii) that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and
(iii) that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
Even in a case, such as this, where the Respondent has not contested the Complaint, it is still necessary for the Complainant to establish that all of the three above elements are present. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has established that it is the owner of numerous registrations for the trademark STAR STABLE in territories including the United States and the European Union. It has also established to the satisfaction of the Panel that its name and trademark are widely known in numerous territories worldwide and are distinctive of the Complainant and its online game. The disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant's trademark STAR STABLE together with the term "hack". The Panel finds that the term "hack" is descriptive in nature and does not serve to distinguish the disputed domain name from the Complainant's trademark. Furthermore the generic Top-Level Domain ("gTLD") ".org" is generally to be disregarded for the purpose of comparison. In the circumstances, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Respondent has not participated in this proceeding and has not therefore contested the Complainant's submissions that it has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and has not commonly been known by a name corresponding to it.
The Panel accepts the Complainant's prima facie submissions and evidence concerning the Respondent's use of the disputed domain name (save in respect of the alleged chat room, for which no evidence has been provided). It is clear to the Panel that such use unfairly targets the Complainant's trademark and is intended to mislead Internet users or otherwise to take unfair advantage of the Complainant's trademark rights. Such use does not amount to a bona fide offering of goods or services by the Respondent, nor is the Panel aware of any other grounds upon which the Respondent may claim to have rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.
In the circumstances, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
As stated above, the Panel accepts the majority of the Complainant's submissions and evidence concerning the Respondent's use of the disputed domain name. It is clearly to be inferred from such use that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name with the intention either of impersonating the Complainant or of offering a method to "hack" the Complainant's website or services. In either case, such registration unfairly targets the Complainant's trademark and constitutes registration in bad faith.
The Panel determines that the Respondent has used the disputed domain name to link to a website which takes unfair advantage of the Complainant's goodwill in its trademark and services and purports to offer Star Coins which would otherwise have to be purchased from the Complainant. The Panel considers that the references to a "hack" in connection with the Complainant's game (i.e. an unauthorized method of obtaining the Complainant's Star Coins) also clearly indicate bad faith on the Respondent's part.
The Panel concludes in all the circumstances that, by using the disputed domain name, the Respondent has attempted to disrupt the business of the Complainant and has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the Respondent's website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent's website or of a product or service on that website (paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy).
Accordingly, the Panel concludes that the disputed 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 disputed domain name be transferred to the Complainant.
Steven A. Maier
Sole Panelist
Date: February 4, 2016
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy