The Complainant is Star Stable Entertainment AB of Stockholm, Sweden, represented by SILKA Law AB, Sweden.
The Respondent is Domain Admin, Privacy Protect, LLC (PrivacyP) of Burlington, United States of America (“United States”) / DOMAIN MAY BE FOR SALE, CHECK AFTERNIC.COM Domain Admin, Whois Foundation of Panama City, Panama. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainR (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on February 26, 2019. On February 27, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On February 28, 2019, 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 March 4, 2019 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 March 7, 2019.
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 proceedings commenced on March 11, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 31, 2019. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on April 1, 2019.
The Center appointed Fabrice Bircker as the sole panelist in this matter on April 9, 2019. 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 Swedish company that operates an online horse game named Star Stable, which is notably available through the domain name.
According to the Complainant, today its game has over 6 million registered players from all over the world with active users in 180 countries and 11 languages.
The Complainant has a significant presence on various social media platforms (on Facebook, YouTube or Instagram, it counts several hundreds of thousands of followers / subscribers).
The Complainant owns STAR STABLE trademarks registrations, notably:
- STAR STABLE (word mark): United States trademark filed on November 19, 2009 and registered on July 6, 2010 in Class 9 under No. 3814190;
- STAR STABLE (word mark): European Union trademark filed on November 18, 2009 and registered on April 5, 2010 in Class 9 under No. 8696775.
The disputed domain name has been registered on December 3, 2011.
It redirects to a website displaying pay-per-click (“PPC”) advertisement links notably related to horse games and video games (including the Complainant’s game).
The website to which the disputed domain name resolves also displays a hypertext link indicating that said “domain name may be for sale”. When clicking on this link, one reaches a website where the disputed domain name is offered for sale at the price of USD 12,000. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant contends that since its registration, the disputed domain name changed hands and is registered via the Registrar since 2018 and, as such, the Complainant counts the date of registration since 2018.
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is a typo version of its registered trademarks STAR STABLE and therefore should be considered as confusingly similar to its rights.
According to the Complainant, there is no bona fide offering of goods or services where the domain name incorporates a trademark which is not owned by the Respondent, nor is the Respondent known by the name “Star Stable”.
The Complainant adds that the legal entity displayed in the WhoIs record is hidden under a privacy shield. Therefore, should the Respondent have any legitimate interests in the domain name it would most likely not have chosen to register it anonymously.
In addition, as the sponsored links displayed on the website available through the domain name refer to the Complainant and its field of activities, the Respondent capitalizes on the reputation and goodwill of the Complainant and of its mark.
Furthermore, offering the domain name for sale cannot be considered as a bona fide use, since the Respondent is seeking to obtain profit based on the value of the Complainant’s mark.
Taken into account all the above, the Complainant considers that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name.
The Complainant contends that the domain name was registered and is used in bad faith because it is confusingly similar with its trademarks and because the Respondent registered said domain name for the purpose of selling it to the Complainant at a price in excess of documented out-of-pocket costs, in order to capitalize on the goodwill of the Complainant’s mark.
The Complainant also puts forward that the Respondent failed to respond to the cease and desist letter it sent to it and that the use of a privacy registration service has been motivated to increase the difficulty for the Complainant of identifying the Respondent, which does not reflect good faith.
Also, the Complainant contends that STAR STABLE is a well-known trademark in the online video game industry. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that the Respondent was not aware of the Complainant’s rights when registering the domain name.
At last, the Complainant points out that the domain name has no other meaning except for referring to its mark and therefore there is no way in which the domain name could be used in good faith by the Respondent.
As remedies, the Complainant requests that the disputed domain name be transferred in its benefit. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy directs that the Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order for the disputed domain name to be cancelled or transferred:
(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;
(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.
On the basis of the arguments and evidence introduced by the Complainant, the Panel concludes as follows: A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, the Complainant must first establish rights in a trademark or service mark and secondly establish that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainants have rights.
Annex 6 to the Complaint shows trademarks registrations for STAR STABLE in the name of the Complainant dating to as early as 2009 and covering the United States and the European Union (among others, STAR STABLE European Union trademark filed on November 18, 2009 and registered under No. 8696775 on April 5, 2010, and STAR STABLE United States trademark filed on November 19, 2009 and registered under No. 3814190 on July 6, 2010).
The Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has established its trademark rights on the STAR STABLE denomination.
The Panel further finds that the disputed domain name is almost identical to the STAR STABLE trademarks.
Indeed, it is of constant case-law that generic Top-Level Domains (“gTLDs”) may be ignored for the purpose of assessing the confusing similarity because they only play a technical function.
Besides, there is a consensus view among UDRP panels that a domain name which contains a common or obvious misspelling of a trademark normally will be found to be confusingly similar to such trademark, where the misspelled trademark remains the dominant or principal component of the domain name, see WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”) at paragraph 1.9.
In the light of the above, the Panel considers that the mere inversion of two adjoining letters is to be considered as a common or obvious misspelling; swapping two adjacent letters is a frequent mistake when typing on a keyboard.
Consequently, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademarks of the Complainant and that the Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy sets out the following circumstances which, without limitation, if found by the Panel, shall demonstrate that the Respondent has rights to, or legitimate interests in, a disputed domain name, for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy:
(i) before any notice to [the Respondent], [the Respondent’s] use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the [disputed] domain name or a name corresponding to the [disputed] domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or
(ii) [the respondent] (as an individual, business, or other organization) [has] been commonly known by the [disputed] domain name, even if [the respondent has] acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or
(iii) [the respondent is] making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the [disputed] domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.
While the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, panels have recognized that proving a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the often impossible 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. If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element (see WIPO Overview 3.0, paragraph 2.1).
As regards the first and third circumstances above, the disputed domain name is parked on a page displaying links to other websites. Some of the links are seemingly generated based on the trademark value of the Complainant’s mark since they promote third parties websites that directly refer to the Complainant’s trademark and to its field of activity. Besides, the disputed domain name is put for sale at the price of USD 12,000.
Such a commercial use unduly capitalizing on the value of a third party’s trademark does not create a right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name for the purposes of the Policy (see for instance Philip Morris USA Inc. v. Pan Shuai Lou,WIPO Case No. D2019-0389 or Express Scripts, Inc. v. Windgather Investments Ltd. / Mr. Cartwright,WIPO Case No. D2007-0267).
Accordingly, the Panel does not find that the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name is in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services within the terms of paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy, or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use with the terms of paragraph 4(c)(iii) of the Policy.
Besides, at the view of the WhoIs database the Respondent does not appear to be commonly known by the name “starstabel” or “”.
Therefore, there is no evidence that the Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain name within the terms of paragraph 4(c)(ii) of the Policy.
Moreover, the Respondent has seemingly no connection or affiliation with the Complainant, and the Complainant has not authorized the Respondent to use or register the disputed domain name.
In view of the above circumstances, the Panel considers that the Complainant has discharged its burden of proof that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.
The burden now shifts to the Respondent to show that he does have some rights or legitimate interests.
The Respondent, which has not replied to the Complainant’s contentions, has not come forward with any explanation that demonstrates any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
As a consequence, based on the record of this proceeding, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of either of the disputed domain names.
The Complainant has satisfied the second element in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy provides examples, that, if found by the panels, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith.
In particular, the first and fourth elements are as follows:
(i) circumstances indicating that [the Respondent has] registered or (…) acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of your documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name;
(iv) by using the domain name, [the Respondent has] intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your web site or location or of a product or service on your web site or location.
Besides, the Panel notes the Complainant contends that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name in 2018, whereas according to the WhoIs database the domain name has originally been registered in 2011.
For the purposes of this case, the Panel finds that the Complainant’s arguments establish registration in bad faith regardless of whether assessed in 2018 or at the time of the original registration in 2011.
Indeed, the Panel notes that the disputed domain name, on the one hand, has been registered after the Complainant’s oldest trademarks, which are intrinsically distinctive, and widely used, and, on the other hand, consists in a misspelling of said trademarks. Consequently, the disputed domain name has no meaning other than as an approximation of the Complainant’s prior trademarks.
In addition, the sponsored links displayed on the website available through the domain name refer to the Complainant and to its field of activities.
Also, there is a clear absence of rights or legitimate interests from the Respondent and there is no legitimate explanation for its choice of the disputed domain name.
In these circumstances, the Panel finds, on the balance of probabilities, that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s rights at the time of registration of the domain name.
Besides, as far as the use of the disputed domain name is concerned, it appears from the record of this case that:
- the Respondent is using the disputed domain name in order to generate traffic toward a website with sponsored links which are related to the Complainant’s widely known trademarks. The Respondent is, therefore, using the Complainant’s mark to attract visitors to its website, for commercial gain by unduly capitalizing on the reputation and goodwill of the Complainant and of its mark. Besides, the nature of the goods and services on the advertised linked websites also creates a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark.
- the disputed domain name is put for sale at the price of USD 12,000, what is obviously a price exceeding out-of-pocket costs;
- the Respondent concealed its identity behind a privacy service. It has already been held by previous UDRP panels that using a privacy service is not per se evidence of bad faith. However, as pointed out by the Complainant, using a privacy service for registering a domain name i) used in connection with PPC links, ii) which is a misspelling of a third party’s widely known and distinctive prior trademark and iii) which is offered for sale, shows an inference that the privacy/proxy service is being used to hide the real identity of the underlying Registrant, and thus it can be considered an inference of bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name (see WIPO Overview 3.0, paragraph 3.6);
- as shown by the Complainant, the Respondent appears to have already been subject to numerous UDRP proceedings where transfer of the disputed domain names has been ordered (for instance, Groupon, Inc. v. Domain Admin, Privacy Protect, LLC (PrivacyP) / Whois Foundation, DOMAIN MAY BE FOR SALE, CHECK AFTERNIC.COM, Domain Admin,WIPO Case No. D2019-0005 or Interbond Corporation of America d/b/a BrandsMart U.S.A. v. Domain May be for Sale, Check Afternic.Com Domain Admin, Whois Foundation,WIPO Case No. D2018-2226). The Respondent is therefore engaged in a pattern of conduct of registering domain names that incorporate or misspell third party trademarks. This is further evidence of bad faith.
Consequently, the Panel finds that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.
At last, further inference of bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name is given by the fact that the Respondent has not denied the assertions made by the Complainant in this proceeding. The Panel finds it reasonable to assume that if the Respondent had legitimate purposes for registering and using the disputed domain name, he would have responded to these assertions.
Accordingly, the Panel finds, on the basis of the evidence presented, that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.
Therefore, the Complainant has satisfied 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.
Fabrice Bircker
Sole Panelist
Date: April 22, 2019
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy