The Complainant is Hays plc, United Kingdom, represented by Osborne Clarke LLP, United Kingdom.
The Respondent is aditya singh, Global Services, India. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on August 21, 2019. On August 22, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On August 23, 2019, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on August 27, 2019, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on August 29, 2019. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”). In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on September 6, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was September 26, 2019. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on September 27, 2019. The Center appointed C. K. Kwong as the sole panelist in this matter on October 11, 2019. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7. 4. Factual Background The Complainant is the owner of numerous trademarks consisting of or comprising the word mark HAYS in international class 35. These registrations include: (1) United Kingdom Trademark Registration No. 00001395978 for the mark HAYS registered on October 16, 1992 in respect of certain services including employment agency services, recruitment and employment advisory and consultancy services and (2) Indian Trademark Registration No. 1443095 for the mark HAYS applied as of April 7, 2006 and remains registered in respect of certain services including employment agency services, recruitment and employment advisory and consultancy services. The evidence produced by the Complainant shows that the registration of its aforesaid HAYS mark occurred long before the registration of the disputed domain name The disputed domain name redirects to the Complainant’s website at “www.haysplc.com”. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant is a FTSE 250 company. It is an expert in recruitment and employing approximately 11,000 people around the world. In 2018, the Complainant placed 77,000 people in permanent jobs and 244,000 people into temporary roles in 33 countries. The Complainant has registered its trademarks internationally including those referred to in Section 4 above. The Complainant’s HAYS trademark is clearly recognizable within the disputed domain name. The term “India”, is non-distinctive. The disputed domain name is nearly identical to the Complainant’s HAYS trademark. The Respondent registered the disputed domain name in July 2019. However, the disputed domain name currently redirects to the Complainant’s website at “www.haysplc.com”, without the Complainant’s consent. The Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name. The Respondent is emailing members of the public in India, falsely claiming to be the Complainant and working on job opportunities for the recipients. The Respondent is defrauding personal data and/or money from individuals. The Complainant’s HAYS logo and tagline “Recruiting experts worldwide” were used on the Respondent’s Profile Verification Invoice in that process. An Indian decision against the Respondent for their similar fraudulent behavior was reported in 2018. On July 31, 2019, the Complainant sent a letter to the Respondent to complain of trademark infringement and only received emails offering job roles in Singapore in response. The Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Notice of proceedings The answers provided by the Registrar to the Center on August 23, 2019 in response to the Center’s request for Registrar Verification confirmed the Respondent as the Registrant of the disputed domain name. The contact particulars of the Registrant of the disputed domain name as of September 6, 2019 were set out in the WhoIs search results obtained by the Center. On September 6, 2019, the Center forwarded the Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceedings together with the Amended-Complaint to the Respondent by email, and the Witten Notice by post/courier and facsimile as per the aforesaid contact particulars with copies to the Registrar. As long as the Complainant or the Center as the case may be communicated with the Respondent using the contact information which the Respondent has chosen to provide to the Registrar as reflected in the above contact details, their respective notice obligations will be discharged and the Respondent is bound accordingly. The Panel is satisfied that the Center has discharged its responsibility under paragraph 2(a) of the Rules to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to the Respondent of the Complaint and that the failure of the Respondent to furnish a reply is not due to any omission or inadequate communication by the Center. B. The Three Elements In rendering its decision, the Panel must adjudicate the dispute in accordance with paragraph 15(a) of the Rules which provides that, “the Panel shall decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable”. Paragraph 14(b) of the Rules further provides that, “if a Party, in the absence of exceptional circumstances, does not comply with any provisions of, or requirement under, these Rules or any requests from the Panel, the Panel shall draw such inferences therefrom as it considers appropriate”. Paragraph 5(f) of the Rules further provides that, “if a Respondent does not submit a response, in the absence of exceptional circumstances, the Panel shall decide the dispute based upon the complaint”. The failure of the Respondent to respond does not automatically result in a favourable decision for the Complainant, which is specifically required under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy to establish each of the three elements as provided therein. See The Vanguard Group, Inc. v. Lorna Kang,WIPO Case No. D2002-1064 and Berlitz Investment Corp. v. Stefan Tinculescu,WIPO Case No. D2003-0465. 1. Identical or Confusingly Similar On the evidence available, the Panel has no hesitation in finding that the Complainant has rights in the trademark HAYS by reason of its trademark registrations as recited in Section 4 above. Furthermore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark HAYS. The disputed domain name It is well-established practice to disregard the gTLD part of a domain name, such as “.com”, when assessing whether a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the mark in issue. Société Anonyme des Eaux Minerales d’Evian and Societe des Eaux de Volvic v. Beroca Holdings B.V.I. Limited,WIPO Case No. D2008-0416. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the first element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is established. 2. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Complainant needs to establish a prima facie case showing that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. See Croatia Airlines d.d. v. Modern Empire Internet Ltd.,WIPO Case No. D2003-0455. Once such prima facie case is made, the burden will shift to the Respondent to prove that it has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. In the present case, the Complainant has asserted registration and use of the registered trademark HAYS well before the Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name The Complainant has confirmed that it has not consented, authorized, licensed or permitted the Respondent to use its mark HAYS. There is no explanation on the record as to why it was necessary for the Respondent to adopt the word “hays” in the disputed domain name. There is no evidence before the Panel to suggest that the Respondent is commonly known as There is also no evidence available to demonstrate any legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name by the Respondents. Accordingly, the Panel is satisfied that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. 3. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Given the Complainant’s supported claim of registration of its said HAYS trademark and the apparent use of that mark for many years before the registration of the disputed domain name as well as the serious allegations of fraud, there is a strong case for the Respondent to come forward to defend the case. Notwithstanding that, the Respondent has not come forward with any defence on its choice of embodying entirely the word “hays” as part of the disputed domain name. The incorporation of the word “hays” as part of the disputed domain name without any explanation under the above circumstances, the re-direction of users who accessed the website to which the disputed domain name resolves to the Complainant’s website, the use of the Complainant’s trademark HAYS and tagline “Recruiting experts worldwide” on the Respondent’s invoice all lead to the conclusion that the Respondent must have been aware of the existence of the Complainant and its trademark HAYS at the time of the registration and use of the disputed domain name. The Panel finds that the circumstances under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy have been established. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name has been registered and used in bad faith under paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy. 7. Decision For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain name C. K. Kwong
Sole Panelist
Date: October 25, 2019
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy