Complainant states that it is “the world’s leading workforce solutions company, helping over 100,000 organizations with their talent needs as well as enabling millions of people to develop their skills and exceed their potential”; that it “has 38,000 employees in more than 60 countries and territories”; and that it “places around 600,000 associates into roles daily.”<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
The Disputed Domain Name was created on April 21, 2022, and is being used in connection with a pay-per-click (“PPC”) website that contains links labelled “Randstad Staffing,” “Adecco Recruitment” and “Paycheck Payroll.” Complainant also states, and provides evidence to support, that “active MX records are associated with the disputed domain name,” which means “[i]t is likely that corresponding fraudulent email addresses are used”; and that Complainant sent a demand letter to Respondent dated June 9, 2022, to which Respondent has never replied.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Complainant contends, in relevant part, as follows:<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Paragraph 4(a)(i): Complainant states that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the ADECCO Trademark because the Disputed Domain Name includes the ADECCO Trademark “in its entirety” plus “the descriptive term ‘payroll’” [which] would not prevent as well a finding of confusing similarity.”<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Paragraph 4(a)(ii): Complainant states that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name because, inter alia<\/em>, “Complainant has not licensed or authorized the Respondent to register or use the disputed domain name[], nor is the Respondent affiliated to the Complainant in any form”; “[t]here is no evidence that the Respondent is known by the disputed domain name[] or owns any corresponding registered trademarks”; and “th<\/span>e structure of the disputed domain name[] reveals that Respondent’s initial intention in registering the disputed domain name was to refer to the Complainant, its trademark and business activity.”<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Paragraph 4(a)(iii): Complainant states that the Disputed Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith because, inter alia<\/em>, “Respondent registered the disputed domain name many years after the registrations of the Complainant’s ADECCO trademarks” and “[t]he ADECCO trademark is a widely known trademark registered in many countries”; “the inclusion of the Complainant’s ADECCO trademark with the term ‘payroll’ in the disputed domain name reflects the Respondent’s clear intention to create an association, and a subsequent likelihood of confusion, with the Complainant’s trademark in Internet users’ mind”; Respondent’s use of a PPC page in connection with the Disputed Domain Name “aims at attracting Internet users for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s ADECCO trademark”; Respondent’s failure to reply to Complainant’s demand letter “may infer bad faith”; and “MX records are associated with the disputed domain name,” which means that “[i]t is likely that corresponding fraudulent email addresses are used” because “Internet users receiving emails from email address associated with the disputed domain name (such as ‘[…]@adecco-payroll.com’) are led to believe that they are personally contacted by the Adecco group.”<\/p>",
"other_legal_proceedings": " The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings which are pending or decided and which relate to the disputed domain name.<\/p>",
"no_response_filed": " No administratively compliant response has been filed.<\/p>",
"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).<\/p>",
"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).<\/p>",
"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).<\/p>",
"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.<\/p>",
"decision": "Accepted",
"panelists": [
"Douglas Isenberg"
],
"date_of_panel_decision": "2023-05-09 00:00:00",
"informal_english_translation": " Complainant states, and provides relevant evidence, that it is the owner of “numerous trademarks… registered in numerous jurisdictions” for the mark ADECCO, including Swiss Reg. No. 2P-431224 (registered September 26, 1996); EU Reg. No. 3,330,149 (registered January 19, 2005); and U.S. Reg. No. 2,209,526 (registered December 8, 1998) (the “ADECCO Trademark”).<\/p>",
"decision_domains": {
"adecco-payroll.com": "TRANSFERRED"
},
"panelist": null,
"panellists_text": null
}