{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-107117",
    "time_of_filling": "2024-12-02 10:28:04",
    "domain_names": [
        "promannuk.com"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "  Iveta Špiclová   (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "PROMAN EXPANSION"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "NAMESHIELD S.A.S.",
    "respondent": [
        "Mohamed Said"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "<p><strong>FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:<\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong>THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME IS IDENTICAL OR CONFUSINGLY SIMILAR TO A TRADEMARK OR SERVICE MARK IN WHICH THE COMPLAINANT HAS RIGHTS<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>The Complainant states that are a leading independent player in the field of temporary work and human resources. It claims to be the world's 13th largest recruitment agency and has a presence in 17 countries. The Complainant&rsquo;s Group turnover amounted to 4.1 billion euros in 2023.<\/p>\n<p>The Complainant states that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark and its associated domain names, as it includes the Complainant&rsquo;s trademark in its entirety. The Complainant asserts that the addition of the letter &ldquo;N&rdquo; and the term &ldquo;UK&rdquo; (&ldquo;United Kingdom&rdquo;) is not sufficient to escape the finding that the domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark. It does not change the overall impression of the designation as being connected to the Complainant&rsquo;s trademark &ldquo;PROMAN&rdquo;. It does not prevent the likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain name and the Complainant and its trademark.<br \/>Furthermore, the Complainant contends that the addition of the gTLD &ldquo;.COM&rdquo; does not change the overall impression of the designation as being connected to the Complainant&rsquo;s trademark.&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p><strong>THE RESPONDENT HAS NO RIGHTS OR LEGITIMATE INTERESTS IN RESPECT OF THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>The Complainant asserts that the Respondent is not known as the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n<p>The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name and he is not related in any way with the Complainant. The Complainant does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with the Respondent.<\/p>\n<p>Neither license nor authorization has been granted to the Respondent to make any use of the Complainant&rsquo;s trademark, or apply for registration of the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n<p>The Complainant highlights that he disputed domain name redirects to the Complainant&rsquo;s official website https:\/\/www.proman-uk.com\/home. The Complainant&rsquo;s contends that the Respondent is not making a bona fide offering of goods or services by means of the disputed domain name, or a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of it.<\/p>\n<p><strong>THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME WAS REGISTERED AND BEING USED IN BAD FAITH<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>The Complainant&rsquo;s submissions on the bad faith element can be summarized as follows:<\/p>\n<p>- &nbsp; &nbsp;The Respondent has registered the disputed domain name which is confusingly similar to Complainant's trademark, many years after Complainant had established a strong reputation and goodwill in its mark. Moreover, a \"Google\" search for the expression &ldquo;PROMANNUK&rdquo; displays several results, all of them being related to the Complainant and its offices. Given the distinctiveness of the Complainant's trademark and reputation, it is reasonable to infer that the Respondent has registered the domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant's trademark;<br \/>- &nbsp; &nbsp;The disputed domain name redirects to the Complainant&rsquo;s own website. The Complainant contends that the Respondent had knowledge of the Complainant&rsquo;s rights prior to the registration of the disputed domain name, which is a hallmark of bad faith;&nbsp;<br \/>- &nbsp; &nbsp;The disputed domain name has been registered by the Respondent in an effort to take advantage of the good reputation the Complainant had built up in its trademarks, with the sole aim to create a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant&rsquo;s trademarks and domain names;<\/p>\n<p>-&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The fact that &ldquo;MX&rdquo; servers are configured, in the Complainant&rsquo;s view, indicates that the disputed domain name may be actively used for e-mail purposes and any e-mail emanating from the disputed domain name could not be used for any good faith purpose.<\/p>\n<p>Therefore, the Complainant states the disputed domain name was registered and being used in bad faith.<\/p>",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "<p>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": "<p>The Complainant's contentions are summarized in the \"Factual Background\" section above.<\/p>\n<p>No administratively compliant Response has been filed.<\/p>",
    "rights": "<p>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": "<p>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": "<p>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": "<p>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": [
        "Igor Motsnyi"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2025-01-04 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "<p>In this proceeding the Complainant relies on the following trademark registrations:<\/p>\n<p>- &nbsp; &nbsp;The International Trademark Registration (IR) under the Madrid system No. 1635272 &ldquo;PROMAN&rdquo; (word and logo), registration date is August 24, 2021, and protected <em>inter alia <\/em>in Algeria, Monaco, the UK, Canada and the US;<br \/><br \/>- &nbsp; &nbsp;The European Union Trademark Registration No. 018537424 &ldquo;PROMAN&rdquo; (word and logo), registration date is January 28, 2022;<\/p>\n<p>-&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The European Union Trademark Registration No. 018501035 &ldquo;PROMAN&rdquo; (word and logo), registration date October 13, 2021; and<\/p>\n<p>- &nbsp; &nbsp;The French Trademark Registration No. 617815 &ldquo;PROMAN Travail Temporaire&rdquo; (word and logo), registration date is March 8, 1991.<\/p>\n<p>The Complainant also refers to its portfolio of domain names &lt;proman-interim.com&gt;, registered since July 8, 2002, &lt;proman-emploi.com&gt; registered since August 13, 2012 and &lt;proman-uk.com&gt;.<\/p>",
    "decision_domains": {
        "promannuk.com": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}