Decision for dispute CAC-UDRP-107718

The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings which are pending or decided and which relate to the disputed domain name.

The Complainant invokes numerous trademarks including the following:

• U.S. word mark PAYPAL registered under No. 3069209 since March 14, 2006, covering goods in class 9 ;
• Indian word mark PAYPAL registered under No. 1239748 since September 25, 2003, covering services in class 36.

The Complainant, PayPal, Inc., is a global online payment company with a revenue of more than 21.5 billion EUR in 2020.

The Complainant is the owner of numerous registered trademarks including U.S. and Indian word marks PAYPAL in several classes since the early 2000’s, and also operates domain names such as <paypal.com>.

The disputed domain name <careers-paypal.com> was registered on June 2, 2025. According to the Complainant’s evidence, the disputed domain name has been used to send an email mentioning the Complainant’s trademark and purporting to offer a position at PayPal. The disputed domain name currently does not resolve to an active website.

The Complainant contends that the requirements of the Policy have been met and that the disputed domain name should be transferred to it.
No administratively compliant Response has been filed.

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).

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).

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).

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.

Paragraph 15 of the Rules provides that the Panel is to decide the complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, the Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable.

The onus is on the Complainant to make out its case and it is apparent, both from the terms of the Policy and the decisions of past UDRP panels, that the Complainant must show that all three elements set out in Paragraph 4 (a) of the Policy have been established before any order can be made to transfer a domain name. As the proceedings are administrative, the standard of proof is the balance of probabilities.

Thus, for the Complainant to succeed it must prove, within the meaning of Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy and on the balance of probabilities that:

1. The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;
2. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and
3. The disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

The Panel has therefore dealt with each of these requirements in turn.

1. Identity of confusing similarity

The Complainant must first establish that there is a trademark or service mark in which it has rights. Since the Complainant is the holder of the registered PAYPAL trademark, which is used in connection with the Complainant’s online payment software and services, it is established that there is a trademark in which the Complainant has rights.

The disputed domain name <careers-paypal.com> incorporates the Complainant’s PAYPAL trademark in its entirety, merely adding a hyphen and the term “careers”. In the Panel’s view, this addition does not prevent the Complainant’s trademark from being recognizable within the disputed domain name (see section 1.8 WIPO Overview 3.0; IM PRODUCTION v. Xue Han, CAC Case No. 104877 <isabel-marantus.com>).

Additionally, it is well established that the Top Level Domains (“TLDs”) such as “.com” may be disregarded when considering whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark in which the Complainant has rights (see section 1.11 WIPO Overview 3.0).

Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. Accordingly, the Complainant has made out the first of the three elements that it must establish.

2. No rights or legitimate interests

Under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, the Complainant has the burden of establishing that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.

It is established case law that it is sufficient for the Complainant to make a prima facie showing that the Respondent has no right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name in order to shift the burden of proof to the Respondent (see section 2.1 WIPO Overview 3.0 and Champion Innovations, Ltd. V. Udo Dussling (45FHH), WIPO case No. D2005-1094; Croatia Airlines d.d. v. Modern Empire Internet Ltd., WIPO case No. D2003-0455; Belupo d.d. v. WACHEM d.o.o., WIPO case No. 2004-0110).

The Panel notes that the Respondent does not seem to be commonly known by the disputed domain name and that the Respondent has not acquired trademark or service mark rights. According to the information provided by the Registrar, the Respondent is known as “Megha S”. The Respondent’s use and registration of the disputed domain name was not authorized by the Complainant. There are no indications that a connection between the Complainant and the Respondent existed.

Fundamentally, a respondent’s use of a domain name will not be considered “fair” if it falsely suggests affiliation with the trademark owner. The correlation between a domain name and the complainant’s mark is often central to this inquiry. Generally speaking, UDRP panels have found that where a domain name consists of a trademark plus an additional term, such composition cannot constitute fair use if it effectively impersonates or suggests sponsorship or endorsement by the trademark owner (see section 2.5.1 WIPO Overview 3.0). The disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’sdistinctive PAYPAL trademark in its entirety, merely adding a hyphen and the term “careers”. In the Panel’s view, this addition even increases the risk of confusion with the Complainant as the term is commonly used in a recruitment context. The disputed domain name could therefore be considered as referring to the Complainant’s recruitment department. The Panel finds that the disputed domain name carries a high risk of implied affiliation with the Complainant and cannot constitute fair use.

Moreover, according to the Complainant’s evidence, the disputed domain name has been used to send an email mentioning the Complainant’s trademark and purporting to offer a position at PayPal. This email appears to have been sent from the address talent@careers-paypal.com, which in the Panel’s view reinforces the unauthorized affiliation with recruitment services on behalf of the Complainant. Obviously, this does not amount to a bona fide offering of goods or services, or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name.  UDRP panels have categorically held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity (e.g. impersonation/passing off, or other types of fraud) can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent (see section 1.13 of the WIPO Overview 3.0).

The Respondent had the opportunity to demonstrate its rights or legitimate interests but did not do so. In the absence of a Response from the Respondent, the prima facie case established by the Complainant has not been rebutted.

Therefore, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. In light of the above, the Complainant succeeds on the second element of the Policy.

3. Bad faith

Complainant must prove on the balance of probabilities that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith and that it is being used in bad faith (see section 4.2 WIPO Overview 3.0 and e.g. Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallow, WIPO Case No. D2000-0003; Control Techniques Limited v. Lektronix Ltd, WIPO Case No. D2006-1052).

According to the Panel, the awareness of a respondent of the complainant and/or the complainant’s trademark rights at the time of registration can evidence bad faith (see Red Bull GmbH v. Credit du Léman SA, Jean-Denis Deletraz, WIPO Case No. D2011-2209; Nintendo of America Inc v. Marco Beijen, Beijen Consulting, Pokemon Fan Clubs Org., and Pokemon Fans Unite, WIPO Case No. D2001-1070).

In the instant case, the Panel finds that the Respondent must have had knowledge of the Complainant’s rights in the PAYPAL trademark at the moment it registered the disputed domain name, since the disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s distinctive and well-known PAYPAL trademark in its entirety and adds a term which can be easily linked to the Complainant. Moreover, the Complainant’s mark has been registered for more than 20 years before the disputed domain name in the Respondent’s country of residence.

As established above, the disputed domain name appears to have been used to send an email impersonating the Complainant by mentioning the Complainant’s trademark. In the Panel’s view, the circumstances of this case indicate that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract Internet users to its website for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant and the Complainant’s trademarks (see section 3.2.4, WIPO Overview 3.0).       

Finally, the Respondent did not formally take part in the administrative proceedings. According to the Panel, this serves as an additional indication of the Respondent’s bad faith.

Therefore, the Panel finds that, on the balance of probabilities, it is sufficiently shown that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.