Complainant is Cintas Corporation, United States of America (“United States” or “U.S.”), represented by Keating Muething & Klekamp PLL, United States.
Respondent is Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 12410646488, Canada / Teresa Jernigan, United States.
2. The Domain Name and RegistrarThe Disputed Domain Name
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on December 3, 2021. On December 6, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Name. On December 6, 2021, 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 December 7, 2021 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. Complainant filed an amendment to the Complaint on December 10, 2021.
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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on December 13, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was January 2, 2022. Respondent did not submit any
response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on January 5, 2022.
The Center appointed Colin T. O’Brien as the sole panelist in this matter on January 12, 2022. 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 BackgroundComplainant, designs, manufactures, and implements corporate identity uniform programs, and provides entrance mats, restroom supplies, tile and carpet cleaning products, promotional products, first aid, safety, and fire protection products and services for more than 1,000,000 businesses throughout North America. Complainant was founded in 1968 and became a publicly traded company in 1983.
During its fiscal year ending May 31, 2018, Complainant generated nearly USD 6.5 billion in revenue. Complainant owns the 13th largest fleet of private trucks in the United States with nearly 14,000 trucks in its fleet all of which is emblazoned with the CINTAS logo.
Complainant’s corporate website is located at
Complainant owns a number of valid and subsisting U.S. federal trademark registrations covering the CINTAS mark (in block letter form) as well as its CINTAS logo (in stylized form), including, but not limited to, Registration Nos. 0985550, 1003590, 4070080, 4052718, 5124224, 5124225, 5124226, 5124227, 5124228, 5124229, 5124230, 5124232 and 5124233. These registrations cover, inter alia, shirts, pants, jackets and coveralls; custom manufacture of uniforms; distributorship services for uniforms, restroom supplies, first aid supplies, floor mats, fire resistant clothing, and fire extinguishers; facilities maintenance services including restroom cleaning, kitchen and kitchen exhaust cleaning, floor, carpet, and tile cleaning; uniform rental, cleaning, and distribution services; first aid kits; and first aid and workplace safety training. Complainant first used its CINTAS brand as early as 1973.
The Disputed Domain Name was registered on July 16, 2021 and it does not resolve to an active webpage.
5. Parties’ Contentions A. ComplainantThe Disputed Domain Name consists of Complainant’s CINTAS mark along with the descriptive or generic word, “jobs”. In particular, the word “jobs” refers to a service Complainant already offers in connection with its
Complainant began acquiring rights in its CINTAS trademark in the United States in 1973 when it first started using the brand. Complainant’s first use date of CINTAS precedes the date on which the Disputed Domain Name was registered, namely, July 16, 2021. Respondent will not be able to produce any evidence that its use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the Disputed Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services predates Complainant’s rights in its CINTAS trademark. Complainant has established enforceable rights in its CINTAS mark long before the Internet was created. At the time the Disputed Domain Name was registered, Complainant had already been operating its own website at
Respondent is not commonly known by the name, “cintasjobs,” and it has not acquired any trademark or service mark rights in the name, “cintasjobs”, Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use the name “cintasjobs” in the context of the Disputed Domain Name or for any other reason, including without limitation in connection with the advertising, marketing, promotion, distribution, or recruiting of careers or jobs of any kind.
Respondent is not making a legitimate, non-commercial or fair use of the Disputed Domain Name, or without the intent for commercial gain, or without intending to mislead consumers as to the affiliation with or sponsorship of the Disputed Domain Name by Complainant, or without the intent to divert consumers from Complainant’s own websites located at
Respondent is not currently using the Disputed Domain Name. The Disputed Domain Name takes you to an inactive, broken website, further suggesting Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the Disputed Domain Name.
The Disputed Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith because the Disputed Domain Name is being used by Respondent to disrupt the business of Complainant and to attract Internet users to Respondent’s website by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent’s website.
The Disputed Domain Name consists of Complainant’s well-known CINTAS mark plus another descriptive word. The Disputed Domain Name was registered well after Complainant acquired rights in its CINTAS mark and began operating its own e-commerce website at
Given the geographically broad registered coverage for the CINTAS mark, Respondent knew or should have known of Complainant’s rights in the CINTAS mark prior to registering the Disputed Domain Name.
Respondent’s non-use of the Disputed Domain Name is evidence that Respondent has used or is using the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith. Panels have found that the non-use of domain names may support a finding of bad faith when considering factors such as the distinctive nature and reputation of the trademark, the failure of a respondent to file a response, and implausibility of any good faith use to which the domain name may be put.
CINTAS is a well-known trademark with a distinctive nature and worldwide reputation. Further, it is not possible to conceive of any plausible actual or contemplated active use of the Disputed Domain Name by Respondent that would not be illegitimate.
B. RespondentRespondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly SimilarComplainant has demonstrated it owns registered trademark rights in the CINTAS trademark in the United States. The addition of the term “jobs” does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. See section 1.8 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”).
Accordingly, the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights.
B. Rights or Legitimate InterestsComplainant has presented a prima facie case that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name and has not been commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name. The fact that Respondent obtained the Disputed Domain Name almost 50 years after Complainant had begun using its famous CINTAS mark indicates that Respondent sought to piggy-back on the CINTAS mark for illegitimate reasons.
After a complainant has made a prima facie case, the burden of production shifts to respondent to present evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. See, e.g., Croatia Airlines d.d. v. Modern Empire Internet Ltd., WIPO Case No. D2003-0455.
Here, Respondent has provided no evidence of any rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name.
In the absence of any evidence rebutting Complainant’s prima facie case indicating Respondent’s lack of rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name, the Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.
C. Registered and Used in Bad FaithThe Disputed Domain Name was registered many years after Complainant first registered and used its CINTAS trademark. The evidence on the record provided by Complainant with respect to the extent of use of its CINTAS trademark, combined with the absence of any evidence provided by Respondent to the contrary, is sufficient to satisfy the Panel that, at the time the Disputed Domain Name was registered, Respondent undoubtedly knew of Complainant’s CINTAS trademark, and knew that it had no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name.
There is prima facie no reason for Respondent to have registered the Disputed Domain Name containing the entirety of the CINTAS trademark with the term “jobs”. While the Disputed Domain Name does not resolve to an active website there is ample evidence of bad faith use on the part of Respondent. UDRP panels have found that the non-use of a domain name would not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding. See section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0.
In the absence of any evidence or explanation from Respondent, the Panel finds that the only plausible basis for registering the Disputed Domain Name has been for illegitimate purposes. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.
The Panel finds that the only plausible basis for registering and using the Disputed Domain Name has been for illegitimate and bad faith purposes.
7. DecisionFor 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
Colin T. O’Brien
Sole Panelist
Date: January 25, 2022