Complainant is Universal Services of America, LP d/b/a Allied Universal, United States of America (“United States”), represented by Cozen O’Connor, United States.
Respondent is Domain Admin, Privacy Protect, LLC (PrivacyProtect.org), United States / Domain Administrator, Site Matrix LLC, Puerto Rico. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on February 13, 2020. On February 14, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Name. On February 17, 2020, 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 Complainant on February 18, 2020 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. Complainant filed an amended Complaint on February 19, 2020. 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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on February 26, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 17, 2020. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on March 24, 2020. The Center appointed Richard W. Page as the sole panelist in this matter on April 2, 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 Complainant is a large security services company located in North America, with more than 150,000 employees. Complainant has gained significant common law trademark rights in its ALLIED UNIVERSAL trademarks (the “ALLIED UNIVERSAL Marks”), through the use, advertisement, and promotion of the ALILED UNIVERSAL Marks in connection with Complainant’s security services and other services, including employment and employee services, that are offered by Complainant and through Complainant’s various divisions (including Allied Universal Security Services, Allied Universal Security Systems, Allied Universal Janitorial Services, and Allied Universal Staffing Services). Complainant has also protected its ALLIED UNIVERSAL Marks with trademark registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office. These registrations include, but are not limited to United States Registration No. 5,136,006 (registered February 7, 2017). Complainant’s corporate website is located at “www.aus.com” where the use of its ALLIED UNIVERSAL Marks can be seen. Notwithstanding Complainant’s registrations of the ALLIED UNIVERSAL Marks in connection with numerous employment staffing services, Complainant’s main corporate website also has an entire page dedicated to careers and jobs, which includes job postings, hiring events, etc., located at “www.jobs.aus.com” and Complainant also uses the ALLIED UNIVERSAL Marks on its jobs page. The Disputed Domain Name was registered on December 13, 2019. According to the evidence provided by the Complainant, the Disputed Domain Name does not resolve to an active website. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant Complainant contends that Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name on December 13, 2019 in complete disregard to Complainant’s ALLIED UNIVERSAL Marks and associated use. Complainant further contends that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s registered ALLIED UNIVERSAL Marks because it prominently and wholly incorporates Complainant’s ALLIED UNIVERSAL Marks. Complainant further contends that Respondent is attempting to make individuals believe that the Disputed Domain Name will be used in connection with services that are identical to those included in Complainant’s employment staffing services listed above, which is confusingly similar in regards to appearance, sound, and overall commercial impression to the ALLIED UNIVERSAL Marks. Complainant alleges that the likelihood of confusion created by Respondent is worsened by the fact that Respondent added “jobs” to the Disputed Domain Name combined with Complainant’s registered ALLIED UNIVERSAL Marks, because employment staffing services are synonymous with “jobs” and these services are directly covered in the registration listed above by Complainant in its Class 35 services. While the Disputed Domain Name also includes the common descriptor “jobs,” the mere addition of this term to Complainant’s ALLIED UNIVERSAL Marks fails to distinguish, and in fact increases the likelihood of confusion, amongst consumers as to the source of the Disputed Domain Name and associated website considering Complainant has a registration for services directly related to jobs in connection with Complainant. Complainant asserts that Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant, and there is no evidence to suggest that Respondent has registered the Disputed Domain Name in advance for legitimate interests or for the bona fide offering of legitimate goods or services. Complainant further asserts that Respondent has anonymously registered the Disputed Domain Name in an effort to evade the consequences of registering a domain name in which it has no rights or legitimate interests. Complainant further asserts that the use of a privacy or proxy registration service to register a domain name has led numerous UDRP panels to take the registrant’s anonymity into account and draw adverse inferences. Complainant avers that Respondent has provided no contact information and cannot be allowed to argue that it is commonly known by the name in the Disputed Domain Name. Once Respondent was identified as Site Matrix LLC, Complainant alleges that Respondent has been previously involved in another UDRP decision that contains similar facts to the case at hand and ultimately required Respondent to transfer a domain name. See Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Domain Administrator, See Privacy Guardian.org/Site Matrix LLC, Domain Administrator,WIPO Case No. D2018-2050. Complainant further alleges that Respondent has registered and is using the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith citing paragraph 4(b) of the Policy and Respondent’s passive use. B. Respondent Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs the Panel as to the principles the Panel is to use in determining the dispute: “A Panel shall decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, these Rules, and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable.” A respondent is not obliged to participate in a domain name dispute proceeding, but if it fails to do so, asserted facts that are not unreasonable will be taken as true and the respondent would be subject to the inferences that flow naturally from the information provided by the complainant: See Reuters Limited v. Global Net 2000, Inc.,WIPO Case No. D2000-0441. Even though Respondent has failed to file a Response or to contest Complainant’s assertions, the Panel will review the evidence proffered by Complainant to verify that the essential elements of the claims are met. See section 4.3 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”). Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy directs that Complainant must prove each of the following: i) that the Disputed Domain Name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and ii) that 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. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar Complainant contends that it has numerous registrations of the ALLIED UNIVERSAL Marks. Section 1.2.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 states that registration of a trademark is prima facie evidence of Complainant having enforceable rights in the ALLIED UNIVERSAL Marks. Complainant has cited to its trademark registrations without contention by Respondent. Therefore, the Panel finds that Complainant has enforceable trademarks rights for purposes of this proceeding. Complainant further contends that the Disputed Domain Name is identical with and confusingly similar to the ALLIED UNIVERSAL Marks pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. Section 1.7 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 says that inclusion of the entire trademark in a domain name will be considered confusingly similar. Section 1.8 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 instructs that the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless or otherwise) does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. Section 1.11.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0, instructs that generic Top-Level Domains (“gTLDs”) such as “.net” may be disregarded for purposes of assessing confusing similarity. The Disputed Domain Name contains the entirety of the ALLIED UNIVERSAL Marks and the dictionary term “jobs”. It also contains a gTLD, which is to be disregarded. Therefore, the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the ALLIED UNIVERSAL Marks pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(i). B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Complainant contends that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the Disputed Domain Name pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. Paragraph 4(a)(ii) requires Complainant to prove that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. Section 2.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 states that once a complainant makes a prima facie case in respect of the lack of rights or legitimate interests of a respondent, the respondent carries the burden of demonstrating it has rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. Where the respondent fails to do so, a complainant is deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. The Policy, paragraph 4(c), allows three nonexclusive methods for the Panelist to conclude that Respondent has rights or a legitimate interest in the Disputed Domain Name: (i) before any notice to you [Respondent] of the dispute, your use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the Disputed Domain Name or a name corresponding to the Disputed Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or (ii) you [Respondent] (as an individual, business, or other organization) have been commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name, even if you have acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or (iii) you [Respondent] are making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Disputed Domain Name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the [ALLIED UNIVERSAL] Marks. Complainant contends that Respondent has made passive use of the Disputed Domain Name, hence Respondent has offered no bona fide goods or services. Complainant further contends that Respondent has hidden its name and cannot be found to have been commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name. Complainant further contends that the passive use is not a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. The Panel finds that Complainant has stated a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. Respondent has failed to rebut. Therefore, the Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Complainant contends that Respondent registered and is using the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith in violation of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy. Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets forth four nonexclusive criteria for Complainant to show bad faith registration and use of the Disputed Domain Name: (i) circumstances indicating that you [Respondent] have registered or you have acquired the Disputed Domain Name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the Disputed Domain Name registration to Complainant who is the owner of the [ALLIED UNIVERSAL] Marks or to a competitor of Complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of your documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the Disputed Domain Name; or (ii) you [Respondent] have registered the Disputed Domain Name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that you have engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or (iii) you [Respondent] have registered the Disputed Domain Name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or (iv) by using the Disputed Domain Name, you [Respondent] have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the [ALLIED UNIVERSAL] Marks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your website or location. The four criteria set forth in paragraph 4(b) of the Policy are nonexclusive. See Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmellows,WIPO Case No. D2000-0003 (“Telstra”). In addition to these criteria, other factors alone or in combination can support a finding of bad faith. One such factor is that Respondent has made no use of the Disputed Domain Name. Complainant alleges that Respondent has not developed any active website or made any other use of the Disputed Domain Name. See Telstra Corporation v. Nuclear Marshmallows,WIPO Case No. D2000-0003. Complainant alleges that Respondent is not making any use of the Disputed Domain Name and that passive use is sufficient for a finding of bad faith registration and use by Respondent, especially combined with actual knowledge by registration of the Disputed Domain Name after registration of the ALLIED UNIVERSAL Marks registrations. In the circumstances of this case, the Panel finds that Respondent likely knew of the ALLIED UNIVERSAL Marks at the time of registration of the Disputed Domain Name. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.2.2. Respondent has offered no explanation as to why its registration or use was in good faith. Furthermore, the Panel in unable to conceive of any plausible good faith use to which the Disputed Domain Name could be put that would not unfairly trade on Complainant’s ALLIED UNIVERSAL Marks. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.3. Therefore, the Panel finds that Complainant has met the requirements of 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 Richard W. Page
Sole Panelist
Date: April 16, 2020
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy