{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-102964",
    "time_of_filling": "2020-03-11 11:41:23",
    "domain_names": [
        "starstablehqck.club"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "  Iveta Špiclová   (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "Star Stable Entertainment AB"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "SILKA Law AB",
    "respondent": [
        "Super Privacy Service LTD c\/o Dynadot "
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nComplainant was founded in 2011 and is a privately held company located in Sweden operating the online horse game starstable.com. The game has players from all over the world with active users in 180 countries and 11 languages. When the game debuted in late 2012, it was in Swedish only. As the company developed and improved the game the market grew to Northern Europe, the US and the rest of the world. Today the Complainant has over 6 million registered users and about 98 percent of them are girls. Based on an existing and popular story, the company is set out to create the best and most engaging horse adventure games where the player will explore the beautiful island of Jorvik on the back of their own horse. Every player rides, takes care of their own horse, embarks on quests, participates in competitions and takes part in the epic story that unfolds in the world of Star Stable. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant has also a significant presence on various social media platforms, such as Facebook, Youtube, Instagram, Google+ and Twitter.\r\n\r\nComplainant has also registered a number of domain names under generic Top-Level Domains (\"gTLD\") and country-code Top-Level Domains (\"ccTLD\") containing the term “STAR STABLE” see for example, <starstable.com> (created in 2007) and <starstable.org> (created in 2012). The Complainant is using these domain names to connect to websites through which it informs potential customers about its STAR STABLE mark, games and merchandise.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name (the \"Domain Name\") was registered on 5 January 2020. \r\n\r\nThe Respondent is using the Domain Name to redirect to various websites. Depending on when the site is accessed, different sites appears. At times, the site warns for malware.  \r\n\r\nThe Respondent uses a privacy shield.\r\n \r\n\r\n",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "None of which the Panel is aware.",
    "no_response_filed": "NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.\r\n\r\n",
    "rights": "The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy).",
    "no_rights_or_legitimate_interests": "The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the Respondent to have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy).",
    "bad_faith": "The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy).",
    "procedural_factors": "The Panel is satisfied that all procedural requirements under UDRP were met and there is no other reason why it would be inappropriate to provide a decision.\r\n\r\nThe Panel observes that the Domain Name is registered in the name of a privacy service, but that in response to the CAC Registrar Verification request the Registrar appears to have failed to disclose details of the underlying registrant in this case. The Registrar response was also late. As such the Registrar is prima facie in breach of the UDRP and\/or ICANN's Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data (see the discussion in Rubis Energie v. Privacy Administrator, Anonymize, Inc. WIPO Case No. DCO2019-0033).\r\n\r\nThe Panel considers it inappropriate to find that there has been non-compliance by the Registrar that is sufficiently serious that it should be brought to the attention of ICANN for enforcement purposes, without giving the Registrar a chance to respond to that allegation.  But issuing a procedural order to give the Registrar such an opportunity would delay and add to the cost of these proceedings.  Further, if such an order were made it would be something that is likely to justify the Panel calling for an additional fee pursuant to paragraph 1 (b) of Annex A of UDRP Supplemental Rules of the Czech Arbitration Court.  The Panel is uncomfortable seeking such a fee from the Complainant in order to address an issue of Registrar conduct and compliance.     \r\n\r\nGiven this, the Panel has decided not to issue a procedural order and to make no formal finding in relation to the Registrar's conduct.   Nevertheless, this is an issue the CAC may wish to take up separately with the Registrar and, if so, may wish to bring this aspect of this decision to the Registrar's attention. ",
    "decision": "Accepted",
    "panelists": [
        "Matthew Harris"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2020-04-23 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "Various registered trade marks comprising or incorporating the term \"Starstable\" including the following:\r\n\r\n(i)    US registered trade mark no 3814190 in class 9 for the standard character mark STARSTABLE applied for on 19 November 2009; and\r\n\r\n(ii)   EU registered trade mark no 008696775 in class 9 for the word mark STARSTABLE with a filing date of 18 November 2009.",
    "decision_domains": {
        "STARSTABLEHQCK.CLUB": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}