The Complainant is Star Stable Entertainment AB of Stockholm, Sweden, represented by SILKA Law AB, Sweden.
The Respondent is Dawid Olszewski of Gdynia, Poland. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. (the "Registrar"). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on August 13, 2018. On August 14, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On August 14, 2018, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details.
The Center verified that 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 proceedings commenced on August 20, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was September 9, 2018. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on September 12, 2018.
The Center appointed Kaya Köklü as the sole panelist in this matter on September 24, 2018. 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 founded in 2011 in Sweden. It is operating an online horse game and has around 6 million registered users wordwide.
The Complainant is the registered owner of various word and figurative STAR STABLE trademarks, particularly covering protection for computer and video games, e.g. European Union Trademark STAR STABLE, registered on April 5, 2010 with trademark registration number 008696775.
The Complainant also owns and operates various domain names which incorporate the trademark STAR STABLE, such as or .
The Complainant's STAR STABLE trademark was already subject to previous UDRP cases, such as Star Stable Entertainment AB v. Cameron Jackson,WIPO Case No. D2017-0621, Star Stable Entertainment AB v. WhoisGuard Protected, WhoisGuard, Inc. / Davidson Gilbert,WIPO Case No. D2018-0259, and Star Stable Entertainment AB v. Dawid Olszewski,WIPO Case No. D2018-1293. All these cases were decided in favor of the Complainant.
The Respondent is an individual from Gdynia, Poland.
The disputed domain name was registered on March 20, 2018.
The screenshots, as provided by the Complainant (cf. Annex 8), show that the disputed domain name resolves to a website in English language, which prominently uses the Complainant's word and figurative trademark STAR STABLE. 5. Parties' Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant requests the transfer of the disputed domain name.
The Complainant is of the opinion that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its STAR STABLE trademark.
Furthermore, the Complainant argues that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. It is rather argued that the disputed domain name falsely suggests that there is some official or authorized link with the Complainant.
Finally, it is argued that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. The Complainant particularly argues that the Respondent must have been well aware of the Complainant's STAR STABLE trademark, when registering the disputed domain name, particularly as the Respondent prominently uses the Complainant's STAR STABLE word and figurative mark on the website linked to the disputed domain name without any visible disclosure of the missing relationship between the Complainant and the Respondent. Furthermore, the Complainant believes that the use of the Complainant's trademark by the Respondent is intended to mislead Internet users or otherwise to take unfair advantage of the Complainant's trademark rights. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
According to paragraph 15(a) of the Rules, the Panel shall decide the Complaint in accordance with the Policy, the Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable.
In accordance with paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove that each of the three following elements is satisfied:
(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights; and
(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and
(iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy states that the Complainant bears the burden of proving that all these requirements are fulfilled, even if the Respondent has not replied to the Complaint's contentions. Stanworth Development Limited v. E Net Marketing Ltd.,WIPO Case No. D2007-1228.
However, concerning the uncontested information provided by the Complainant, the Panel may, where relevant, accept the provided reasonable factual allegations in the Complaint as true. See, section 2.1 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition ("WIPO Overview 3.0").
It is further noted that the Panel has taken note of the WIPO Overview 3.0 and, where appropriate, will decide consistent with the consensus views captured therein. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has registered trademark rights in the mark STAR STABLE by virtue of various trademark registrations (cf. Annex 6).
The Panel further finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's registered STAR STABLE trademark, as it fully incorporates the Complainant's trademark. As stated at section 1.8 of the WIPO Overview 3.0, where the relevant trademark is recognizable within the disputed domain name, the additions of other terms would generally not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. The mere addition of the term "hack" and/or the generic Top-Level Domain (gTLD) ".win", does in view of the Panel not serve to prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant's STAR STABLE trademark.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirement under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Panel further finds that the Respondent has failed to demonstrate any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
While the burden of proof on this element remains with the complainant, previous UDRP panels have recognized that this would result in the often impossible task of proving a negative, in particular as the evidence in this regard is often primarily within the knowledge of the respondent. Therefore, the Panel agrees with prior UDRP panels that the Complainant is required to make out a prima facie case before the burden of production of evidence shifts to the Respondent to show that it has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name in order to meet the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. See, Croatia Airlines d.d. v. Modern Empire Internet Ltd.,WIPO Case No. D2003-0455.
The Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied this requirement, while the Respondent has failed to file any relevant evidence to demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name according to the Policy, paragraphs 4(a)(ii) and 4(c).
In its Complaint, the Complainant has provided uncontested prima facie evidence that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests to use the Complainant's trademark STAR STABLE in a confusingly similar way within the disputed domain name.
In the absence of a Response, there is no indication in the current record that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. Furthermore, the Respondent has failed to demonstrate any of the other non-exclusive circumstances evidencing rights or legitimate interests under the Policy, paragraph 4(c) or other evidence of rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
The Panel particularly notes that the website which is linked to the disputed domain name does not adequately disclose the relationship, or lack thereof, between the Respondent and the Complainant, thus creates the false impression that the Respondent might be an official and authorized provider of the Complainant's online horse game – particularly, as the Respondent prominently uses the Complainant's word and figurative trademark.
Additionally, the Panel credits the Complainant's contention that the purpose of the Respondent's website is to collect personal data for improper purposes and to introduce malware to the player's computers.
As a conclusion, the Panel finds that the Complainant has also satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Panel is further convinced that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.
The Panel is convinced that the Respondent must have had the Complainant's trademark in mind when registering the disputed domain name.
It even appears that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name solely for the purpose of creating an association with the Complainant. After having reviewed the Complainant's screenshot of the website linked to the disputed domain name (cf. Annex 8), the Panel is convinced that the Respondent has intentionally registered the disputed domain name in order to generate traffic to its own website. The Panel notes that the Respondent has not published any visible disclaimer on the website linked to the disputed domain name to explain that there is no existing relationship between the Respondent and the Complainant. Quite the opposite, the design of the website linked to the disputed domain name and the prominent use of the Complainant's STAR STABLE word and figurative trademark is sufficient evidence in view of the Panel that the Respondent intentionally tries to attract, for illegitimate gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's STAR STABLE trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of its website. In the Panel's view, the Respondent is trying to misrepresent himself as the trademark owner in an officially sanctioned cheating program without being entitled to do so. The Panel further finds credible the risk of malware and fraudulent use of personal information for the users of the Respondent's website.
Furthermore, the Panel finds that the Respondent's failure to respond to the Complaint also supports the conclusion that it has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. The Panel believes that, if the Respondent did in fact have legitimate purposes in registering and using the disputed domain name, it would have probably responded.
The Panel therefore concludes that the disputed domain name was registered and is used in bad faith and that the Complainant has also satisfied the third element of the Policy, namely, paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy. 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.
Kaya Köklü
Sole Panelist
Date: October 5, 2018
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy