The Complainant is The Governor and Company of Adventurers of England Trading into Hudson’s Bay AKA Hudson’s Bay Company, Canada, represented by Loeb & Loeb, LLP, United States of America.
The Respondent is Domain Administrator, See PrivacyGuardian.org, United States of America. 2. The Domain Names and Registrar
The disputed domain names The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on January 10, 2020. On January 13, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On January 14, 2020, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. The Center verified that the 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 January 22, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was February 11, 2020. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on February 13, 2020. The Center appointed Knud Wallberg as the sole panelist in this matter on February 25, 2020. 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, Hudson’s Bay Company was incorporated in England on May 2, 1670, and is known and referred to in the alternative as “Hudson’s Bay” and/or “HBC”. The Complainant is one of the world’s premier retail store chain companies, and it has been a premier provider of luxury goods for several hundred years. In the early 1900s, the Complainant’s retail divisions emerged in Canada leading it to become one of the world’s largest department store chains. The Complainant’s portfolio today includes formats ranging from luxury to premium department stores to off price fashion shopping destinations, with over 300 stores and about 40,000 employees. The Complainant currently owns approximately 90 HBC department stores in Canada. The Complainant has registered its HBC mark in more than 31 countries worldwide, including the United States, Canada, China, and the European Union, including Canadian registration no. TMA606933 of HBC, registered on April 2, 2004 for a wide range of goods and services. The disputed domain name The Complainant asserts that the disputed domain names The Complainant further asserts that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. Rather, the Respondent is merely using each disputed domain name to trade on the good name and reputation of the Complainant and its HBC Mark in furtherance of the Respondent’s unlawful and unauthorized activities. There is no evidence or reasonable inference that the Respondent is currently known, has ever been known as “ Upon information and belief, the Complainant asserts that the Respondent is not using, and have not used, any of the disputed domain names in connection with any bona fide offering of goods or services. Rather, the Respondent is engaged in unlawful phishing, collecting personal and sensitive information from applicants, including financial information, under the guise of the Complainant and trading on the goodwill and reputation of the Complainant and the HBC Mark. The Respondent has thus been using the disputed domain names primarily in connection with advertising and promoting fraudulent job postings under the employer name “Hudson’s Bay Co.”. The Respondent’s postings prominently and unlawfully use the Complainant’s HBC mark, HUDSON’S BAY COMPANY mark, and its coat of arms logo. Finally, the Complainant asserts that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s prior rights in the HBC mark before registering the disputed domain names and that the Complainant is using the disputed domain names in bad faith, inter alia to generate profits through consumer confusion as to source or affiliation with the Complainant. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings According to paragraph 15(a) of the Rules the Panel shall decide the Complaint in accordance with the Policy, the Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable. Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy directs that a complainant must prove each of the following: (i) that the disputed domain name registered by the respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; (ii) that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and (iii) that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy states that the burden of proving that all these elements are present lies with the Complainant. At the same time, in accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, if a party, in the absence of exceptional circumstances, does not comply with any provision of, or requirement under, the Rules, or any request from the Panel, the Panel shall draw such inferences therefrom as it considers appropriate. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar (in the sense of the Policy) to the Complainant’s registered trademark HBC since the disputed domain names each incorporate the entirety of the trademark (see WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.7), together with the words “career”, “careers”, “interviews”, “job”, and “recruit”, respectively. Where a relevant trademark is recognizable within a disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element, see WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8. The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark HBC and that the conditions in paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy are therefore fulfilled in relation to the disputed domain names. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests It is clear from the facts of the case that the Complainant has not licensed or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use its trademark. Given the circumstances of this case, and in particular the way that the Respondent has been using the disputed domain names as described above and below, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. The Respondent has chosen not to participate in the proceeding, and indeed there is no other evidence of the types of circumstances set out in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy that might give rise to rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names on the part of the Respondent in these proceedings. Consequently, the Panel finds that the conditions in paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy are also fulfilled. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy requires the Complainant to prove both registration and use of the disputed domain names in bad faith. Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy provides an example of circumstances, which shall be evidence of registration and use in bad faith: (i) circumstances indicating that the Respondent has registered or has acquired the disputed domain names primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the Complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that Complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of the Respondent’s documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or (ii) the Respondent has registered the disputed domain names in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that the Respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or (iii) the Respondent has registered the disputed domain names primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or (iv) by using the disputed domain names, the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent’s website or location or of a product or service on the Respondent’s website or location. Accordingly, for the Complainant to succeed, the Panel must be satisfied that the disputed domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith. Given the circumstances of the case and in particular the distinctive nature of the mark and the longstanding use of the Complainant’s trademark HBC, it is inconceivable to the Panel in the current circumstances that the Respondent registered the disputed domain names without prior knowledge of the Complainant and the Complainant’s mark. Further, the Panel finds that the Respondent could not have been unaware of the fact that it chose the disputed domain names, which could attract Internet users in a manner that is likely to create confusion for such users. The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain names were registered in bad faith. The Complainant has evidenced that the disputed domain name As far as the remaining of the disputed domain names In this case where the Respondent has registered a number of domain names that all incorporate the Complainant’s distinctive trademark, and where these inactive domain names are composed in the same way as the previously listed disputed domain names, the Panel finds that there is an obvious risk that these disputed domain names will be used for similar, bad faith activities as the previously listed disputed domain names. Therefore, and since the Respondent has not filed a response and since the Panel finds that it is implausible that any good faith use can be made of the domain names, the totality of circumstances leads the Panel to conclude that also these domain names have been used in bad faith. Based on the above findings, and considering all the facts and evidence, the Panel therefore finds that the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(iii) and 4(b) of the Policy are fulfilled for all the disputed domain names in this case. 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 names Knud Wallberg
Sole Panelist
Date: March 10, 2020
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy