The Complainants are EmployBridge, LLC and EB IP Holdings, LLC, United States of America (“United States”), represented by The GigaLaw, Douglas M. Isenberg, Attorney at Law, LLC, United States.
The Respondent is Employee Bridge, Employee Bridge Staffing 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 November 25, 2020. On November 26, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On November 30, 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 the Complainant on November 30, 2020, 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 amendment to the Complaint on November 30, 2020. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to 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 December 3, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was December 23, 2020. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on December 24, 2020. The Center appointed Adam Taylor as the sole panelist in this matter on January 4, 2021. 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 Founded in 1985, the First Complainant trades under the name “EmployBridge” and is the largest industrial staffing company in the United States. It has more than 400 branches and serves some 12,000 companies, placing about 400,000 associates annually. The Second Complainant is an intellectual property holding company for the First Complainant. The Complainants are collectively referred to below as “the Complainant” unless it is necessary to refer to them in the plural form. The Complainant’s website is located at “www.employbridge.com”. The Complainant owns United States trade mark no. 2,595,816 for EMPLOYBRIDGE, filed on January 22, 2001, registered on July 16, 2002, in class 35, and United States trade mark no. 5,867,537, for a logo comprising the stylised letters “EB“ plus figurative elements, filed on March 12, 2019, registered on September 24, 2019, in class 35. The disputed domain name was registered on January 20, 2020. As of November 25, 2020, the disputed domain name was used for a website headed “Welcome to Employ Bridge!”. The website offered recruitment services, stating that “[w]e are one of the leading Staffing Company [sic] in North America working with Fortune 500 companies…” The Complainant sent a legal letter to the Respondent on September 17, 2020, but the Respondent did not reply. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The following is a summary of the Complainant’s contentions: The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade marks. The first element functions primarily as a standing requirement and is a low threshold test. The Complainant’s EMPLOYBRIDGE mark, or a dominant feature thereof, is recognisable within the disputed domain name. The initial letter “e” in the disputed domain name is a common shorthand for the word “employ” or variations thereof. The word “bridge” appears in both the disputed domain name and the trade mark. The first seven letters of the disputed domain name appear in the trade mark. The disputed domain name wholly incorporates the EB trade mark. The addition of the descriptive word “staffing” does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity and indeed this term increases the confusing similarity, given its association with the Complainant. Confusing similarity is reinforced by the fact that the Respondent’s website obviously targets the Complainant’s trade mark. The Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Complainant has never authorised the Respondent to register or use its trade mark. By using the disputed domain name to mean name for a website that purports to compete with the Complainant, the Respondent has failed to create a bona fide offering of goods or services. The Respondent has never been commonly known by the disputed domain name and has never acquired any trade mark rights in it. The Respondent cannot establish rights or legitimate interests because its website misleadingly diverts customers and/or creates initial interest confusion. The disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Respondent registered the disputed domain name to disrupt the Complainant's relationship with its customers for potential gain and/or to create a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trade mark by using it for a website that offered competing services. The Respondent was clearly aware of the Complainant's strong and distinctive trade mark. The disputed domain name is so obviously connected with the Complainant that the Respondent's actions amount to opportunistic bad faith. The Respondent’s failure to reply to the Complainant's demand letter is further evidence of bad faith. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Under the Policy, the Complainant is required to prove on the balance of probabilities that: - the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark in which the Complainant has rights; The principles governing the question of whether a complaint may be brought by multiple complainants are set out in section 4.11 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”). The Panel is satisfied that (a) the Complainants, which are part of the same group of companies, have a specific common grievance against the Respondent and that the Respondent has engaged in common conduct that has affected the Complainants in similar fashion and (b) that it would be equitable and procedurally efficient to permit the consolidation. B. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainant has established rights in the mark EMPLOYBRIDGE by virtue of its registered trade mark. Section 1.7 of WIPO Overview 3.0 makes clear that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. The test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the complainant’s trade mark and the disputed domain name. Where at least a dominant feature of the relevant mark is recognisable in the disputed domain name, it will normally be considered confusingly similar to that mark for purposes of UDRP standing. Section 1.7 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 also observes that panels have found that the overall facts and circumstances of a case (including relevant website content) may support a finding of confusing similarity, particularly where it appears that the respondent registered the domain name precisely because it believed that the domain name was confusingly similar to a mark held by the complainant. Here, the Panel considers that the combination of the letter “e” plus the word “bridge”, the dominant term in the trade mark, is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s EMPLOYBRIDGE mark for the purposes of the first element. The Panel also notes that, on its website, the Respondent uses “Employ Bridge”, the exact name and trade mark of the Complainant, as its trading name, indicating that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name precisely because of its similarity to the Complainant’s mark. See further below under section 6D. As regards the addition of the term “staffing”, section 1.8 of WIPO Overview 3.0 explains that where the relevant trade mark is recognisable within the disputed domain name, the addition of other terms, whether descriptive or otherwise, would not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element. In the circumstances of this case, the inclusion of this term supports a finding of confusing similarity, given the nature of the Complainant's business. The Panel therefore finds that the Complainant has established the first element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. C. Rights or Legitimate Interests As explained in section 2.1 of WIPO Overview 3.0, the consensus view is that, where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If not, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element. Here, the Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorised the Respondent to use its trade mark. Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy gives examples of circumstances which, if proved, suffice to demonstrate that a respondent possesses rights or legitimate interests. As to paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy, the Panel has concluded below that the Respondent has used the disputed domain name to intentionally attempt to attract, confuse and profit from Internet users seeking the Complainant’s products and services. Such use of the disputed domain name could not be said to be bona fide. Nor is there any evidence that paragraphs 4(c)(ii) or (iii) of the Policy apply in the circumstances of this case. The Panel finds that the Complainant has established a prima facie case of lack of rights or legitimate interests and there is no rebuttal by the Respondent. The Panel concludes that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and that the Complainant has therefore established the second element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. D. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel notes that the Respondent's website appears to attempt to impersonate the Complainant in that it uses “Employ Bridge”, the Complainant’s distinctive name and trade mark, as its trading name and it refers to the Respondent as a leading company providing staffing services in North America, despite the fact that the Respondent is apparently located in India. Moreover, the Respondent has used the disputed domain name to offer the same kind of services as those provided by the Complainant. The Respondent has not come forward to deny the Complainant’s assertions of bad faith. It is difficult to conceive of any legitimate reason why the Respondent would wish to register the disputed domain name and the Respondent has offered no explanation. In the Panel’s view, paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy applies. By using the disputed domain name, reflecting the Complainant’s distinctive trade mark, in the manner outlined above, the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract Internet users to its website for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trade mark. The Panel therefore finds that the Complainant has established the third element of paragraph 4(a) 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, Adam Taylor
- the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and
- the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Consolidation
Sole Panelist
Date: January 18, 2021
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy