With regard to the first UDRP element, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name <starstabe.com> is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trade mark STAR STABLE. Indeed, the disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant's trade mark in its entirety, save that the disputed domain name omits the letter "L" from the Complainant's trade mark. The Panel considers this case to be a plain case of "typo squatting", i.e., the disputed domain name contains an obvious misspelling of the Complainant's trade mark, which is not sufficient to alter the overall impression of the designation as being connected to the Complainant’s trade mark. The deletion of the letter "L" does not prevent the likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain name and the Complainant, its trade marks and associated domain names. The Panel follows in this respect the view established by numerous other decisions that a domain name which consists of a common, obvious, or intentional misspelling of a trade mark is to be considered to be confusingly similar to the relevant trade mark (see, for example, CAC Case No. 103124, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co.KG v. Fundacion Comercio Electronico <boehringeringelheimpetrreebates.com>; CAC Case No. 101990, JCDECAUX SA -v- Emma Purnell <jcdeceux.com>, and CAC case No. 101892, JCDECAUX SA -v- Lab-Clean Inc <jcdacaux.com>).
With regard to the second UDRP element, there is no evidence before the Panel to suggest that the Respondent has made any use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Neither is there any indication that the Respondent is making legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. Indeed, the disputed domain name is not being used for any active website but resolves to a parking page with commercial links, which has in itself been regarded by other panels as supporting a finding that the respondent did not have a bona fide offering of goods or services or make legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the disputed domain names (see, for example, Forum Case No. FA 970871, Vance Int’l, Inc. v. Abend (concluding that the operation of a pay-per-click website at a confusingly similar domain name does not represent a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate non-commercial or fair use, regardless of whether or not the links resolve to competing or unrelated websites or if the respondent is itself commercially profiting from the click-through fees); and WIPO Case No. D2007-1695, Mayflower Transit LLC v. Domains by Proxy Inc./Yariv Moshe ("Respondent’s use of a domain name confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark for the purpose of offering sponsored links does not of itself qualify as a bona fide use.")). The Panel further finds that the Respondent is not affiliated with or related to the Complainant in any way and is neither licensed nor otherwise authorised to make any use of the Complainant’s trade mark or to apply for or use the disputed domain name. Finally, the Whois information does not suggest that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed name <starstabe.com>. Absent any response from the Respondent, or any other information indicating the contrary, the Panel concludes that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.
With regard to the third UDRP element, it is reasonable to infer that the Respondent either knew, or should have known, that the disputed domain name would be identical with or confusingly similar to the Complainant's trade mark, and that it registered the disputed domain name in full knowledge of the Complainant's trade mark. Indeed, if the Respondent had carried out a Google search for the term “Star Stable”, the search results would have yielded immediate results related to the Complainant, its website at <starstable.com>, and its connected business and services. The Panel concludes that it is difficult in those circumstances to believe that the Respondent was unaware of the Complainant's trade mark. Indeed, it is likely that the disputed domain would not have been registered if it were not for the Complainant's trade mark (see, for example, WIPO Case No D2004-0673 Ferrari Spa -v- American Entertainment Group Inc).
Furthermore, the website related to the disputed domain name currently resolves to a parking page with commercial links related to the Complainant's activities. Based on the decisions of other panels in similar cases, the Panel accepts the Complainant's submissions that the Respondent's attempt to attract Internet users for commercial gain to its own website based on the Complainant’s trade mark is evidence of bad faith (see, for example, WIPO Case No. D2018-0497, StudioCanal v. Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC / Sudjam Admin, Sudjam LLC (“In that circumstance, whether the commercial gain from misled Internet users is gained by the Respondent or by the Registrar (or by another third party), it remains that the Respondent controls and cannot (absent some special circumstance) disclaim responsibility for, the content appearing on the website to which the disputed domain name resolve […] so the Panel presumes that the Respondent has allowed the disputed domain name to be used with the intent to attract Internet users for commercial gain, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trademark as to the source, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent's website to which the disputed domain name resolves. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.”)).
Absent any response from the Respondent, or any other information indicating the contrary, the Panel therefore also accepts that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.
|