Decision for dispute CAC-UDRP-107928

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 is the owner of several trademarks “PROMAN”, such as:

• The European trademark PROMAN n° 018537424 registered since January 28, 2022;
• The European trademark PROMAN n°018501035 registered since October 13, 2021;
• The international trademark PROMAN n° 1635272 registered since August 24, 2021;
• The French trademark PROMAN n° 1617815 registered since September 24, 1990.

The Complainant also owns domain names containing PROMAN, such as:

• <proman-emploi.com> registered since August 13, 2012;
• <proman-interim.com> registered since July 8, 2002.

PROMAN is a leading independent player in the field of temporary work and human resources. It is the 4^th European player in temporary work, has a presence in 18 countries, and the Group turnover amounted to 4.4 billion euros in 2024.

The disputed domain name <proman-interlrn.com> was registered on August 29, 2025 and resolves to a parking page. MX servers are configured for it.

Complainant

A. The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights

The disputed domain name <proman-interlrn.com> is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark PROMAN and its associated domain names, as it includes the Complainant’s trademark in its entirety. 

The term “INTERLRN” is not sufficient to escape the finding that the domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark PROMAN. It does not change the overall impression of the designation as being connected to the Complainant’s trademark PROMAN. It does not prevent the likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain name and the Complainant or its trademark and domain names. On the contrary, it appears to be a misspelled version of the word 'interim' reflecting the Complainant's <PROMAN-interim.com> domain name and worsens the likelihood of confusion, as it refers to the Complainant activities in temporary work.

Furthermore, the Complainant contends that the addition of the suffix “.COM” does not change the overall impression of the designation as being connected to the Complainant’s trademark. It does not prevent the likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain name and the Complainant, its trademark or its domain names.

Consequently, the disputed domain name <proman-interlrn.com> is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark PROMAN.

B. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name

The Complainant is required to make out a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests. Once such a prima facie case is made, the Respondent carries the burden of demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. If the Respondent fails to do so, the Complainant is deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a) (ii) of the Policy.

The Respondent is identified in the Whois database as “proman-interlrn”, located "1445 Londonderry Drive Woodstood Georgia 30188 United-States". No registered organization exists under this denomination at this address. 

The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name <proman-interlrn.com> and is not related in any way with the Complainant. The Complainant does not carry out any activity for and nor does it have any business with the Respondent.

Neither license nor authorization has been granted to the Respondent to make any use of the Complainant’s trademark PROMAN, or apply for registration of the disputed domain name.

Finally, the disputed domain name resolves to a parking page. The Respondent has not used the disputed domain name, and has no demonstrable plan to use the disputed domain name. 

Thus, in accordance with the foregoing, the Complainant contends that the Respondent has no right or legitimate interest in respect of the disputed domain name <proman-interlrn.com>.

C. The disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith

The Respondent has registered the disputed domain name <proman-interlrn.com>, which is confusingly similar to Complainant's trademark PROMAN, many years after Complainant had established a strong reputation and goodwill in its mark.

Moreover, the addition of the term “INTERLRN”, a misspelled version of the term “INTERIM”, cannot be coincidental, as it refers to the Complainant’s activities in interim employment and reflects the Complainant's domain name <PROMAN-interim.com>.

Finally, a Google search on the expression “PROMAN INTERLRN” displays several results, most of them being related to the Complainant.

Given the distinctiveness of the Complainant's trademark and reputation, it is reasonable to infer that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant's trademark.

Furthermore, the disputed domain name resolves to a parking page. The Complainant contends that the Respondent has not demonstrated any activity in respect of the disputed domain name, and it is not possible to conceive of any plausible actual or contemplated active use of the domain name by the Respondent that would not be illegitimate, such as by being a passing off, an infringement of consumer protection legislation, or an infringement of the Complainant’s rights under trademark law.

Finally, the disputed domain name has been set up with MX records which suggests that it may be actively used for e-mail purposes.

On those facts, the Complainant contends that Respondent has registered the disputed domain name <proman-interlrn.com> and is using it in bad faith.

Response

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.

The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's prior PROMAN trade mark containing it in its entirety and adding only a hyphen, the non-distinctive designation 'interlrn' and the gTLD .com none of which prevents said confusing similarity.

The Respondent is not authorised by the Complainant or commonly known by the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name has not been used so there is no legitimate non-commercial use or bona fide use in relation to goods or services. Respondent has no legitimate interest in the disputed domain name.

The disputed domain name appears to be a typosquatting registration reflecting the Complainant's domain name <PROMAN-interim.com>. It is being passively held using a false address. The disputed domain name has been registered and used in bad faith.