In order to determine whether the Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name, the Complainant is required to make out a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests. Once such prima facie case is made, the burden of proof shifts to the Respondent to come forward with appropriate allegations or evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name (Accor v. Eren Atesmen, WIPO D2009-0701; Malayan Banking Berhad v. Beauty, Success & Truth International, WIPO D2008-1393).
The Complainant argues that the Respondent is not affiliated with him nor authorised by him in any way, and he notes that the Domain Name has been used for a parking page since it registration. Based on these findings, it prima facie appears that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests.
Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides that the following circumstances can demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name for the purpose of paragraph 4(a)(ii):
(i) before any notice to you of the dispute, your use 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) you (as an individual, business, or other organisation) have been commonly known by the domain name, even if you have acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or
(iii) you are making a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.
The Panel is of the opinion that these conditions have not been met in the present case.
Firstly, it should be noted that the Respondent incorporated the company Arcelorstaffingsolutions on 15 January 2014. Contrary to the statements of the Respondent, the Domain Name “arcelorstaffing.com” does not match its business name. Neither does the Respondent hold any trade mark right in the sign “arcelorstaffing”. The mere allegation that it experienced funding issues and that due to this, the website has not been developed, is not sufficient to establish use or preparation of use in good faith.
Secondly, the Respondent does not show that he is commonly known by the Domain Name by third parties before the domain name was registered (see in that sense Laurence St. Ives v. Orgatech Ltd, WIPO D.2000-1588).
Thirdly, the fact that the website has been put on a parking page does not of itself confer rights or legitimate interests arising from a bona fide offering of goods or services or from legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the Domain Name (Paris Hilton v. Deepak Kumar, WIPO D2010-1364). The fact that the trade mark of the Complainant is linked with the word “staffing” could give the impression to Internet users that it serves as a web portal in the context of recruiting activities carried out by the Complainant.
Fourthly, the fact that the Respondent alleges that he did not generate any revenue with his firm and that he does not have any intention of other commercial gain with using the Complainant’s trade mark is not sufficient to establish a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the Domain Name.
In conclusion, the Panel finds that the Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the Respondent to have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(ii)of the Policy).
|