WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

The Complainant owns the following domain names: (i) <starstable.com> registered on October 16, 2007; and (ii) <starstable.org> registered on May 16, 2012.

The disputed domain name was created on January 27, 2014. The Web site to which it resolves comprises links to different online games made available by third parties.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant argued the following:

(i) The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.

That the Complainant operates the online horse game starstable.com with more than 6 million registered users currently playing in over 180 countries in more than 11 languages.

That the Complainant has registered the trademark STAR STABLE in numerous countries, including the EU and the United States, where the administrative contact of the Respondent is located.

That the disputed domain name is confusingly similar (almost identical) to the Complainant’s trademark STAR STABLE, since it is a typo version of said trademark, where the letter “a” has been replaced with the letter “e”.

That the addition of the generic Top-Level Domain (gTLD) “.com” does not add any distinctiveness to the disputed domain name.

(ii) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

That there is no bona fide offering goods or services where the disputed domain name incorporates a trademark which is not owned by the Respondent, nor is the Respondent known by it.

That hiding records under a privacy shield by the Respondent only further proves the lack of any legitimate interest of the Respondent in the disputed domain name.

That the sponsored links on the Web page where the disputed domain name is parked, contain references to the Complainant (Star Stable/Star Stable Online), its scope of activity and its field of business (online games, adventure games, kids’ games).

That the only reason why the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name has been to seek advantage of the Complainant’s trademark, in order to sell it to the Complainant, or to a competitor.

(iii) Registration and use in bad faith.

That it is not illegitimate per se to offer a domain name for sale; but that when a domain name incorporates a trademark and is being offered for sale with the purpose to capitalize on the goodwill of that mark, such conduct does not constitute use in good faith.

That the Respondent targeted the Complainant’s trademark when registering the disputed domain name, with the expectation of an easy profit.

That the Respondent has been engaged in at least seven different UDRP proceedings regarding the bad faith registration and use of different domain names.

That STAR STABLE is a well-known trademark in the online video game industry; that therefore it is highly unlikely that the Respondent was not aware of the Complainant’s trademark rights and the value of said trademark at the time of the registration.

B. Respondent

The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

The Complainant must prove that the three elements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy have been met:

(i) The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and

(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the disputed domain name; and

(iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and used in bad faith.

In view of the Respondent’s failure to submit a Response, the Panel shall decide this proceeding on the basis of the Complainant’s undisputed factual allegations pursuant to paragraphs 5(e), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules, and shall draw such inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules (see Boris Johnson v. Belize Domain WhoIs Service Lt, WIPO Case No. D2010-1954).

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark STAR STABLE, because it incorporates said trademark in its entirety, with only a slight change, i.e.,the substitution of a letter “a” for a letter “e”. This is a case of typosquatting (see section 1.9 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”)). The misspelling of the Complainant’s trademark in the disputed domain name seems not to be a coincidence, but an attempt to mislead users who are searching for the Complainant’s Web site (see, Edmunds.com, Inc. v. Digi Real Estate Foundation, WIPO Case No. D2006-1043, Allstate Insurance Company v. PrivacyProtect.org / Purple Bucquet, WIPO Case No. D2011-0003, and Schneider Electric S.A. v. Domain Whois Protect Service / Cyber Domain Services Pvt. Ltd., WIPO Case No. D2015-2333).

The addition of the gTLD “.com” to the disputed domain name is without significance for the purpose of assessing confusing similarity (see SAP SE v. Mohammed Aziz Sheikh, Sapteq Global Consulting Services, WIPO Case No. D2015-0565; and Bentley Motors Limited v. Domain Admin / Kyle Rocheleau, Privacy Hero Inc., WIPO Case No. D2014-1919).

The first element of the Policy has been met.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy sets forth the following examples as circumstances where a respondent may have rights or legitimate interests in a domain name:

(i) before any notice to the respondent of the dispute, the use by the respondent of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the 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 domain name, even if you have acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or

(iii) the respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.

The Complainant has submitted evidence showing that it has trademark rights for STAR STABLE in the EU, the United States and other countries, and that said trademark is widely recognized by Internet users, by means of its vast online presence.

There is no evidence in the case file showing that the Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor that it is in any way associated with the Complainant or its trademark STAR STABLE (see Beyoncé Knowles v. Sonny Ahuja, WIPO Case No. D2010-1431; Six Continents Hotels, Inc. v. IQ Management Corporation, WIPO Case No. D2004-0272).

The evidence comprised in the case file demonstrates that the Web site to which the disputed domain name resolves displays hyperlinks such as “Star Stable”, and “Star Stable Online”, which directly target the Complainant, its products and services.

The Web site to which the disputed domain name resolves also comprises hyperlinks such as “Star Ride”, which in turn displays, among others, links to Web sites like “Play Rider – Free games online, Play Now” (located at “www.joy.land/Rider/Play”) which features, in addition to several third-party games, a blog, and “Star Rider – Download Now” (located at “www.myformsfinder.com/download/free”) which is able to collect personal data of users.

There is another hyperlink made available at the Web site to which the disputed domain name resolves, titled “Star Stable Download”, which features links to Web sites like “Howrse, Free Online Game – Play now” (located at “us.howrse.com”, “Play Star – Free Download”), which offers a videogame that copies the Complainant’s game, and which was created by a competitor of the Complainant, as well as “Play Star – Free Download” (located at “www.freeconverterhub.com/Play+Star”) which can also collect personal data of Internet users.

The fact that the Web site to which the disputed domain name resolves features hyperlinks that redirect traffic to game sites of third parties, including “www.howrse.com”, which makes available a look-alike game that mimics that of the Complainant, increases the risk of confusion or wrongful association among Internet users (see AltaVista Company v. O.F.E.Z. et al., WIPO Case No. D2000-1160; Expedia, Inc. v. Dotsan, WIPO Case No. D2001-1220; CSA International (a.k.a. Canadian Standards Association) v. John O. Shannon and Care Tech Industries, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2000-0071).

The fact that the Complainant’s company and game caters to 6 million children, of which 98% are girls (according to the Complainant’s affirmation, which has not been contested by the Respondent) makes this case a sensitive and delicate one. Considering that the Web site to which the disputed domain name resolves comprises links that redirect users to sites that collect personal data, and links that divert traffic to a Web page that incorporates a blog, the disputed domain name poses a risk to the young audience that it misleadingly attracts. This conduct cannot be deemed to have taken place in good faith, and therefore cannot confer any rights to, or legitimate interests in the Respondent over the disputed domain name (see, mutatis mutandis, Minerva S.A. v. TT Host, WIPOCase No. D2016-0384; and Accor v. SANGHO HEO / Contact Privacy Inc., WIPO Case No. D2014-1471).

The second element of the Policy has been met.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

According to paragraph 4(b) of the Policy, the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, shall be evidence of registration and use in bad faith:

(i) circumstances indicating that the respondent has registered or the respondent has 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; or

(ii) the respondent has registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark 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 domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or

(iv) by using the domain name, the respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its 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 its website or location.

The Complainant’s game Start Stable is well-known. The Respondent has engaged in typosquatting. The disputed domain name resolves to a Web page that displays links that redirect users to other gaming sites, including a site which features a game that mimics that of the Complainant. These facts show that the Respondent knew the Complainant, its game, and its trademark STAR STABLE at the time of registration of the disputed domain name.

The disputed domain name is being offered for sale at the Web site to which said disputed domain name resolves. Its current price is USD 1,088. Considering the above-mentioned facts, it is plausible to presume that the disputed domain name was acquired with the purpose of selling it to the Complainant, or to a competitor of the Complainant. The price of the disputed domain name constitutes valuable consideration in excess of normal, out-of-pocket costs directly related to the disputed domain name.

The Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the Web site to which the disputed domain name resolves, thereby creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s game and trademarks STAR STABLE, as to the source, affiliation, or endorsement of the Web site to which the disputed domain name resolves (see Booking.com BV v. Chen Guo Long, WIPO Case No. D2017-0311, The Johns Hopkins University (“JHU”), The Johns Hopkins Health System Corporation (“JHHS”), Johns Hopkins Medicine International, L.L.C. (“JHI”) v. Marketing Express, WIPO Case No. D2013-0148). This conduct constitutes bad faith according to Paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.

The third element of the Policy has been met.

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 <starsteble.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

Kiyoshi Tsuru
Sole Panelist
Date: April 19, 2019