Decision for dispute CAC-UDRP-105308

The Complainant argues that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to their Trademark. They claim that the disputed domain name incorporates the entire Trademark and adds the generic terms "staffing" and "USA," which do not prevent confusion. Additionally, they state that the TLD ".com" does not prevent confusion either.

Regarding bad faith, the Complainant states that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. They claim that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name long after the Trademark, which is widely recognized. Moreover, they argue that the inclusion of two generic terms in the disputed domain name clearly refers to the Complainant, who has an established business presence in the United States through its subsidiary company Adecco USA, Inc., and offers staffing services.

In terms of bad faith use, the Complainant asserts that the Respondent has not demonstrated any activity related to the disputed domain name and argues that the non-use of the disputed domain does not prevent a finding of bad faith in the present case, citing the doctrine of passive holding. The Complainant supports this argument by stating that the structure of the domain name is designed to mislead Internet users into believing it is associated with the Complainant, its subsidiary in the United States, and its business activity. They further claim that there is no evidence of any actual or intended good-faith use of the domain name, that they sent a cease and desist letter to the Respondent regarding their rights to the Trademark, which received no response, and that the Respondent impermissibly used the name "Adecco Staffing" in the WhoIs record, incorporating the Complainant's Trademark. Lastly, they point out that active MX records are associated with the disputed domain name, suggesting the likelihood of a corresponding fraudulent email address being used.

RESPONDENT:

No administratively compliant Response has been filed.

(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark; and
(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.

1. The Panel accepts that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Trademark. It is well established that a domain name that wholly incorporates a trademark may be confusingly similar to such a trademark for purposes of the Policy despite the addition of geographic or generic terms, such as "USA" or "staffing".

2. The Complainant has substantiated that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Panel finds that the Complainant has fulfilled its obligations under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. The Respondent did not deny these assertions in any way and, therefore, failed to prove any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Based on the evidence on file, the Panel cannot find any rights or legitimate interests of the Respondent either, as the disputed domain name is not actively used. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has proven that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name under paragraphs 4(a)(ii) and 4(c) of the Policy.

3. The Panel is satisfied that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant and its well-established rights in the Trademark. This finding is supported by the fact that the Trademark is highly distinctive and that the disputed domain name includes generic terms clearly referring to the Complainant and its business.

Furthermore, the Panel accepts the Complainant's contentions that the disputed domain name has been used in bad faith under the principles of passive holding. It is the consensus view that the lack of active use of a domain name does not, as such, prevent a finding of bad faith under the Policy. In such cases, the panel must examine all the circumstances of the case to determine whether a respondent is acting in bad faith. Examples of circumstances that can indicate bad faith include a complainant having a well-known trademark, no response to the complaint, the respondent’s concealment of identity, and the impossibility of conceiving a good faith use of the domain name (cf Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No. D2000-0003; Jupiters Limited v. Aaron Hall, WIPO Case No. D2000-0574; Ladbroke Group Plc v. Sonoma International LDC, WIPO Case No. D2002-0131). The Panel is convinced that the Trademark is well-established. Furthermore, the Respondent failed to file a Response and, therefore, did not provide evidence of any actual or contemplated good-faith use of the disputed domain name. In the view of the Panel, the facts of this case do not allow for any plausible actual or contemplated active use of the disputed domain name by the Respondent in good faith. The Panel is therefore convinced that, even though the disputed domain name has not yet been actively used, the Respondent’s non-use of the disputed domain name equals use in bad faith.