{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-107652", "time_of_filling": "2025-06-11 13:31:05", "domain_names": [ "promanstaffingco.com" ], "case_administrator": "Olga Dvořáková (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "PROMAN EXPANSION" ], "complainant_representative": "NAMESHIELD S.A.S.", "respondent": [ "Abstrakt Mail Marketing (Abstrakt Marketing Group)" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "

The disputed domain name <promanstaffingco.com<\/span>> was created on April 4, 2025.  The disputed domain name redirects to the official website of the Complainant’s US entity <promanstaffing.com>. Additionally, MX records are configured for the domain name<\/span><\/p>\n

According to the information on the case file, the Registrar confirmed that the Respondent is the current registrant of the disputed domain name and that the language of the registration agreement is English.<\/p>\n

On June 11, 2025, Complainant filed the instant Complaint.<\/p>\n

The facts asserted by the Complainant are not contested by the Respondent because no Response was filed.<\/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": "

COMPLAINANT:<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Complainant asserts that it is a leading independent player in the field of temporary employment and human resources. The Complainant claims to be the 4th largest European staffing company, operating in 18 countries and with a reported turnover of 4.4 billion euros in 2024.<\/span><\/p>\n

The Complainant states that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark PROMAN, as it incorporates the mark in its entirety, disregarding the generic top-level domain .com. The complainant submits that <\/span>the addition of the generic terms “staffing” and “co” does not avoid a finding of confusing similarity. On the contrary, these terms exacerbate confusion, particularly because they reinforce the employment-related services for which the Complainant is known especially its U.S. operations under the PROMAN STAFFING brand.<\/p>\n

 The Complainant asserts that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name because: the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name; the Respondent has no affiliation, authorization, license or similar relationship with the Complainant. The Complainant 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

 Regarding bad faith registration and use, the Complainant claims that the disputed domain name <promanstaffingco.com> was registered long after the Complainant had established substantial goodwill and global recognition in the PROMAN mark.<\/p>\n

 Given the strong digital presence and reputation of the PROMAN brand, including its U.S. entity “PROMAN STAFFING”, the Complainant asserts it is reasonable to conclude that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name with full awareness of the Complainant’s rights. A simple Google search for “PROMAN STAFFING” leads directly to the Complainant’s U.S. website and operations.<\/p>\n

The Complainant contends that the fact that the disputed domain redirects to the Complainant’s own website strongly suggests prior knowledge, and that the Respondent is intentionally leveraging the Complainant’s reputation to attract Internet users by creating confusion. The Complainant argues that this constitutes registration and use in bad faith under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.<\/p>\n

The Complainant further argues that the configuration of active MX records indicates that the disputed domain name could be used for email communication, raising the risk of impersonation or phishing attacks.<\/p>\n

The Complainant thus contends that the requirements of the Policy have been met and that the disputed domain name should be transferred to it.<\/p>\n

RESPONDENT:<\/strong><\/p>\n

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": [ "Claire Kowarsky" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2025-07-09 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "

The Complainant is the owner of trademarks consisting of the term PROMAN  in numerous countries. Specifically, the Complainant is the owner of the PROMAN  trademark under:<\/p>\n