WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Star Stable Entertainment AB v. Domain Admin, Privacy Protect, LLC (PrivacyP) / DOMAIN MAY BE FOR SALE, CHECK AFTERNIC.COM Domain Admin, Whois Foundation Case No. D2019-0448 1. The Parties

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 conf