Robert Half International Inc. v. Henry Glickel / Sales Recruiters, Inc.
Claim Number: FA1104001383463
Complainant is Robert Half International Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Britton Payne of Foley & Lardner LLP, New York, USA. Respondent is Henry Glickel / Sales Recruiters, Inc. (“Respondent”), represented by Richard J. Joyal, New Hampshire, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <accounttempsstaffing.com>, <accounttempsstaffing.net>, <officeteamstaffing.net>, <rhistaffing.net>, and <rhirecruiting.net>, registered with NETWORK SOLUTIONS, LLC.
The undersigned certifies that she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Carol Stoner, Esq. as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on April 12, 2011; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on April 13, 2011.
On April 14, 2011, NETWORK SOLUTIONS, LLC. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <accounttempsstaffing.com>, <accounttempsstaffing.net>, <officeteamstaffing.net>, <rhistaffing.net>, and <rhirecruiting.net> domain names are registered with NETWORK SOLUTIONS, LLC. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. NETWORK SOLUTIONS, LLC. has verified that Respondent is bound by the NETWORK SOLUTIONS, LLC. registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).
On April 19, 2011, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of May 9, 2011 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@accounttempsstaffing.com, postmaster@accounttempsstaffing.net, postmaster@officeteamstaffing.net, postmaster@rhistaffing.net, postmaster@rhirecruiting.net. Also on April 19, 2011, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the email addresses served and the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to Respondent via post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts.
A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on May 4, 2011.
On May 9, 2011, Complainant submitted an Additional Submission. This Submission was received in a timely manner according to the Forum’s Supplemental Rule #7.
On May 04, 2011, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Carol Stoner, Esq., as Panelist.
Complainant requests that the domain names <accounttempsstaffing.com>, <accounttempsstaffing.net>, <officeteamstaffing.net>, <rhistaffing.net>, and <rhirecruiting.net> be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant alleges as follows:
Complainant, Robert Half International Inc. (“RHI”), has provided employment placement and staffing services throughout the United States since at least as early as 1948. RHI has more than 350 specialized consulting and staffing locations worldwide and worldwide revenues of over US $3 billion in 2010. RHI advertises on major Internet job boards and has significant name recognition for both online employers and online job seekers.
Continuously since 1948, RHI and its predecessors have used ROBERT HALF and since 1994, its abbreviation RHI, as a trademark.
RHI has been continuously engaged, since at least as early as 1999, in providing services in the fields of employment placement, career information and recruitment through its Internet websites, including its website at <rhi.com>.
RHI owns registrations for the trademark RHI alone, or as part of a composite mark, in 18 jurisdictions around the world. These include US Trademark Registration No. 2,147,434, European Community Trademark No. 001286863 for the RHI Abacus Logo, U.S. Trademark Registration No. 2,346,887 for RHI CONSULTING TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONALS, and U.S. Trademark Registration No. 3,675,195 for RHI ROBERT HALF INTERNATIONAL A GLOBAL LEADER IN PROFESSIONAL SERVICES SINCE 1948.
One of RHI’s principal divisions is ACCOUNTEMPS, the world’s first and largest temporary staffing company for accounting, finance and bookkeeping professionals. RHI has continuously provided these services under the ACCOUNTEMPS trademark since 1973. ACCOUNTEMPS has more than 350 offices worldwide and worldwide revenues under the mark, during the fiscal years 2003-2010 inclusive, have exceeded US $10 Billion.
RHI has maintained the website <accounttemps.com> since November 6, 1995 which provides information for both employers and prospective employees. RHI owns the registration for the trademark ACCOUNTEMPS in 32 jurisdictions around the world. These include U.S. Trademark Registrations Nos. 1,272,104 and 1,009,244 and European Community Trademark No. 30510.
RHI has provided temporary staffing services for administrative professionals under the OFFICETEAM mark continuously since June 2, 1991. Total worldwide revenue under the mark during the fiscal years 2003-2010 inclusive have exceeded US $5 billion. RHI has spent much time, money and effort advertising and promoting its OFFICETEAM mark in major newspapers around the world. RHI maintains a web site for its OFFICETEAM business at <officeteam.com>.
RHI has owned the OFFICETEAM domain name since November 6, 1995 and maintains a website for its OFFICETEAM business at <officeteam.com>. RHI owns registrations for the trademark OFFICETEAM in 26 jurisdictions around the world. These include U.S. Trademark Registrations Nos. 1,694,787, 1,831,543 and 2,007,942 and European Community Trademark No. 000030551.
As a result of its broad-based advertising and sales of RHI under its registered RHI Marks, ACCOUNTEMPS and OFFICETEAM, all of these marks have become famous and are associated exclusively with RHI.
Respondent Henry Glicke registered the domain names <accounttempsstaffing.com>,<accounttempsstaffing.net>,<rhistaffing.net> and <officeteamstaffing.net> and <rhirecruiting.net> on March 17, 2011.
On or about March 28, 2011, it came to RHI’s attention that the ACCOUNTEMPS and OFFICETEAM Domain Names had been registered and had been directed to parked placeholder web pages that displayed links to competing employment service websites. This activity continues to the present day.
In a letter dated March 30, 2011, Complainant informed Respondent of Complainant’s rights in the marks ACCOUNTEMPS and OFFICETEAM and demanded transfer of these names by April 06, 2011. Respondent, in a telephone response of same day, stated that he had a previous business interaction with RHI and was fully aware of its businesses.
Respondent explained that he bought the disputed domain names for the purpose of directing them to the website for a business he recently acquired called Barclay Personnel, an employment placement service, and offered to sell the names for $3000.
On or about April 11, 2011, it came to Complainant’s attention that Respondent had registered the domain names <rhistaffing.net> and <rhirecruiting.net> and similarly directed them to placeholder web pages that displayed links to competing employment service websites.
Complainant alleges that the domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s RHI Marks and ACCOUNTTEMPS and OFFICETEAM MARKS. The intentional misspelling of a famous mark (here, the extra “t” in the middle) and the addition of a generic word “staffing” and the addition of a generic top level domain do not distinguish the domain names from RHI marks.
Further, the domain names <oficeteamstaffing.net>, <rhistaffing.net> and <rhirecruiting.net> include Complainant’s OFFICETEAM and RHI Marks In their entirety, adding the generic word “staffing” or “recruiting”, both of which describe Complainant’s field of business, and thus, are confusingly similar to Complainant’s marks.
Complainant alleges that Respondent cannot establish any of the circumstances listed under UDRP Policy which would demonstrate its legitimate interests in the Domain Names. Respondent can show no bona fide use of the domain names. Respondent cannot show a legitimate interest because he cannot show that he is commonly known by any of the domain names.
Respondent registered the disputed domain names well after RHI commenced use of its famous RHI Marks and ACCOUNTEMPS and OFFICETEAM marks.
Further, Respondent conceded familiarity with RHI and its businesses.
Complainant alleges that Respondent registered the domain names to trade-off the goodwill established by RHI, by exploiting the likelihood of confusion of these marks, for his commercial gain.
Complainant alleges that Respondent registered the disputed domain names with the bad faith intention of selling them for more than out- of- pocket expenses.
B. Respondent alleges as follows:
Respondent has been engaged in the employment recruiting business under the name “Sales Recruiters” since 1986 and under the name “Barclay Personnel” since 1978. The companies became affiliated in 1978.
Although Respondent’s business is not as geographically widespread as the Complainant’s (RHI) it engages in the same marketplace as RHI. However, neither RHI nor any of the other thousands of recruiters are considered to be a rival.
The Respondent has historically engaged in cooperative personnel searches and placements with RHI. Reference to the RHI name has been of assistance in finding job candidates requested by RHI.
Respondent assumed that RHI had unintentionally neglected to register <rhistaffing.net> and <rhirecruiting.net> and would have appreciated registration by Respondent, in furtherance of a mutual advantage. Therefore, Respondent was surprised by Complainant’s accusatory tone and bullying conduct.
Respondent does not pretend to be RHI and concedes that the name RHI is the property of Complainant. Respondent stipulates that they have not, and will not, use the RHI mark or trade name.
Respondent alleges though, that the names of <accounttempsstaffing.net> and <accounttempsstaffing.com> and <officeteamstaffing.net> are common terms that can be used by anyone to describe office team staffing and temporary accounting placement and staffing. These “dictionary” words should not be the exclusive property of RHI.
The domain names in issue were as readily available through Network Solutions to RHI as they were to the Respondent. Thus, Respondent did not act in bad faith in the registration of these names.
The Respondent has not confused the public that seeks employment related services. Respondent has not misled or diverted consumers to its website, nor has it sought to tarnish the RHI trademarks and/or service marks.
Google searches of “accountemps”, “officeteam”, and” officeteamstaffing” demonstrated that RHI dominates the search results and it disproves the assertion that the Respondent’s activity has done RHI harm or that it is likely to do RHI harm. RHI’s activities are intended to eliminate fair competition.
Respondent alleges that RHI is acting as a bully in seeking to secure disputed names for free, in lieu of purchasing them in the marketplace.
Respondent seeks the remedy of compensation for direct and incidental costs in acquiring the names <rhistaffing.net> and <rhirecruiting.net> if it is determined that they must be transferred to RHI. Respondent further states that the domain names <accounttempsstaffing.net>, <accounttempsstaffing.com> and <officeteamstaffing.net> should be denied and the Complaint dismissed.
C. Additional Submissions
Complainant, in its Additional Submission, alleges as follows:
Respondent’s Answer confirms that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain names and that he registered them in bad faith.
Respondent
admits that he is a direct competitor in the field of personnel searches and
placements. Complainant cites cases that indicate that
the use of a confusingly similar domain name to market and sell services in
direct competition with Complainant does not constitute a bona fide
offering of goods or services under Policy ¶4(c )(i) or a legitimate
noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶4(c )(iii).
Respondent further admits that “the name RHI is the property of Complainant” and makes no attempt to argue that he has any right or legitimate interest in that mark, in ACCOUNTEMPS or in OFFICETEAM.
Despite Respondent’s contentions, there is nothing descriptive about the particular combinations of words which make up the trademark ACCOUNTEMPS or OFFICETEAM. Rather, these marks are the subject of incontestable Federal Registrations, per U.S.C. §1115.
Complainant alleges that Respondent’s offer to sell back the domain names for a price far in excess of their acquisition cost simply confirms Respondent’s bad faith.
(1) The domain names registered by Respondent, that is, <rhistaffing.net>, <rhirecruiting.net>, <accounttempsstaffing.net>, <accounttempsstaffing.com>, and <officeteamstaffing.net> are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and
(2) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain names; and
(3) the domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith.
-10-
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "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."
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred:
(4) the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and
(5) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(6) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
Panel has reviewed Complainant’s Exhibits evidencing trademark registrations which established rights in the ACCOUNTEMPS (e.g., Reg. No. 1,272,104 registered March 27, 1984), OFFICETEAM (e.g., Reg. No. 1,831,543 registered April 19, 1994), and RHI (e.g., Reg. No. 2,147,434 registered March 31, 1998) marks, which are registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”). The Panel finds that Complainant’s filings with a federal trademark authority, specifically the USPTO for the trademark registrations of the ACOUNTEMPS, OFFICETEAM, and RHI marks, sufficiently establishes rights in the marks pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Miller Brewing Co. v. Miller Family, FA 104177 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 15, 2002) (finding that the complainant had established rights to the MILLER TIME mark through its federal trademark registrations); see also Expedia, Inc. v. Tan, FA 991075 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 29, 2007) (“As the [complainant’s] mark is registered with the USPTO, [the] complainant has met the requirements of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”).
Complainant alleges Respondent’s <accounttempsstaffing.com> and <accounttempsstaffing.net> domain names are confusingly similar to the ACCOUNTEMPS mark. Respondent uses the entire mark and merely adds the descriptive term “staffing” and generic top-level domains (“gTLDs”) “.com” and “.net” to the respective disputed domain names. Additionally, Complainant claims that Respondent added the letter “t” to the middle of Complainant’s ACCOUNTEMPS mark resulting in a very slight alteration of Complainant’s mark.
The Panel finds that adding descriptive terms, a gTLD, and a single letter to a registered mark does not prevent a finding that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Sutton Group Fin. Servs. Ltd. v. Rodger, D2005-0126 (WIPO June 27, 2005) (finding that the domain name <suttonpromo.com> is confusingly similar to the SUTTON mark because the addition of descriptive or non-distinctive elements to the distinctive element in a domain name is immaterial to the analysis under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)); see also Trip Network Inc. v. Alviera, FA 914943 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 27, 2007) (concluding that the affixation of a gTLD to a domain name is irrelevant to a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis); see also Reuters Ltd. v. Global Net 2000, Inc., D2000-0441 (WIPO July 13, 2000) (finding that a domain name which differs by only one letter from a trademark has a greater tendency to be confusingly similar to the trademark where the trademark is highly distinctive).
Complainant avers that Respondent’s <officeteamstaffing.net> domain name is confusingly similar to the OFFICETEAM mark. Complainant states that Respondent used the entire mark and merely added the descriptive term “staffing” and the gTLD “.net” to Complainant’s mark. The Panel finds that these actions do not result in a unique domain name in accordance with Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Gillette Co. v. RFK Assocs., FA 492867 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 28, 2005) (finding that the additions of the term “batteries,” which described the complainant’s products, and the generic top-level domain “.com” were insufficient to distinguish the respondent’s <duracellbatteries.com> from the complainant’s DURACELL mark); see also Katadyn N. Am. v. Black Mountain Stores, FA 520677 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 7, 2005) (“[T]he addition of the generic top-level domain (gTLD) “.net” is irrelevant for purposes of determining whether a domain name is identical to a mark.”).
Complainant cites that Respondent’s <rhistaffing.net> and <rhirecruiting.net> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s RHI mark. Clearly, Respondent has incorporated Complainant’s entire mark and merely added descriptive terms such as “staffing” and “recruiting” to Complainant’s mark and simply added the gTLD “.net” to the disputed domain names. The Panel finds that these actions have not resulted in unique domain names that fall outside of a determination of confusing similarity under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Constellation Wines U.S., Inc. v. Tex. Int’l Prop. Assocs., FA 948436 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 16, 2007) (finding that the addition of the descriptive term “wine” to the complainant’s BLACKSTONE mark in the <blackstonewine.com> domain name was insufficient to distinguish the mark from the domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)); see also Trip Network Inc. v. Alviera, FA 914943 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 27, 2007) (concluding that the affixation of a gTLD to a domain name is irrelevant to a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis).
While Respondent contends that the <accounttempsstaffing.com>, <accounttempsstaffing.net>, and <officeteamstaffing.net> domain names are comprised of common and generic terms and, as such, cannot be found to be confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark, the Panel finds that such a determination is not necessary under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) as this portion of the Policy considers only whether Complainant has rights in the marks and whether the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark. See Precious Puppies of Florida, Inc. v. kc, FA 1028247 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 10, 2007) (examining Respondent’s generic terms arguments only under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) and Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) and not under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)); see also Vitello v. Castello, FA 159460 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 1, 2003) (finding that the respondent’s disputed domain name was identical to complainant’s mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), but later determining the issue of whether the disputed domain name was comprised of generic terms under Policy ¶¶ 4(a)(ii) and 4(a)(iii)).
Rights and Legitimate Interests
Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), and then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 18, 2006) (holding that the complainant must first make a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under UDRP ¶ 4(a)(ii) before the burden shifts to the respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in a domain name); see also AOL LLC v. Gerberg, FA 780200 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 25, 2006) (“Complainant must first make a prima facie showing that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interest in the subject domain names, which burden is light. If Complainant satisfies its burden, then the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain names.”).
Panel was persuaded by Complainant’s Exhibits No. 1 and No. 2 containing WHOIS information, that Respondent is not commonly known by any of the disputed domain names and that Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant’s marks. The WHOIS information lists the registrant of the disputed domain names as “Henry Glickel” which Complainant alleges is not similar to the disputed domain names. The Panel finds, based on this evidence, that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Tercent Inc. v. Lee Yi, FA 139720 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 10, 2003) (stating “nothing in Respondent’s WHOIS information implies that Respondent is “commonly known by’ the disputed domain name” as one factor in determining that Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) does not apply); see also St. Lawrence Univ. v. Nextnet Tech, FA 881234 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 21, 2007) (concluding a respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name where there was no evidence in
the record indicating that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain name).
Panel has found Complainant’s Additional Submission to be particularly persuasive
in rebuttal to Respondent’s descriptive and generic arguments. Here, Complainant retorts that “There is nothing descriptive about the particular combinations of words which make up the trademark ACCOUNTEMPS or OFFICETEAM. One would not normally describe the service of providing temporary accounting personnel as “accountemps”. It is a coined word. The same is true of OFFICETEAM.”
Panel opines, that these marks are, if not coined, at most are suggestive of products or services. These marks certainly do not reach the frothy realm of being considered generic or descriptive.
Of further influence in Complainant’s Additional Submission, is its reminder that both ACCOUNTEMPS and OFFICETEAM are the subject of incontestable Federal registrations, in accordance with 15 U.S.C. §1115. This means that these marks cannot be attacked on grounds of descriptiveness.
Complainant shows evidence that each of Respondent’s domain names resolve to websites featuring hyperlinks to Complainant’s competitors in the temporary hiring and staffing business. The Panel determines that such use is not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Walmart Stores, Inc. v. Power of Choice Holding Co., FA 621292 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 16, 2006) ( finding that the respondent’s use of domain names confusingly similar to the complainant’s WAL-MART mark to divert Internet users seeking the complainant’s goods and services to websites competing with the complainant did not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c )(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c )(iii); see also Tesco Pers. Fin. Ltd. v. Domain Mgmt. Servs., FA 877982 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 13, 2007) (finding that the respondent was not using the <tesco-finance.com> domain name in connection with a offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use by maintaining a web page with misleading links to the complainant’s competitors in the financial services industry).
Respondent offered to sell the <accounttempsstaffing.com>, <acccounttempsstaffing.net>, and <officeteamstaffing.net> disputed domain names to Complainant for a cash payment of $3000. Respondent’s offer to sell the domain names negates its purported use of same and thus it lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain names pursuant to Policy ¶ 4 (a)(ii). See Am. Nat’l Red Cross v.
Domains, FA 143684 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 4, 2003) (“Respondent’s lack of rights and legitimate interests in the domain name is further evidenced by Respondent’s attempt to sell its domain name registration to Complainant, the rightful holder of the RED CROSS mark.”); see also Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Stork, D2000-0628 (WIPO Aug. 11, 2000) (finding the respondent’s conduct purporting to sell the domain name suggests it has no legitimate use).
Thus, Complainant has made a prima facie showing that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interest in the subject domain names. Respondent has not met its reciprocal burden.
Respondent offered to sell the <accounttempsstaffing.com>, <accounttempsstaffing.net>, <officeteamstaffing.net>, disputed domain names to Complainant for a cash payment of $3,000. The Panel finds that such an offer is evidence that Respondent has engaged in bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain names pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Neiman Marchus Group, Inc. v. AchievementTec, Inc., FA 192316 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 15, 2003) (finding the respondent’s offer to sell the domain name for $2000 sufficient evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b) (i)); see also Am. Online, Inc. v. Avrasya Yayincilik Danismanlik Ltd., FA 93679 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 16, 2000) (finding bad faith where the respondent offered domain names for sale).
Complainant’s Exhibit 12 evidences that Respondent’s <accounttempsstaffing.com>, <accounttempsstaffing.net>, <officeteamstaffing.net>, <rhistaffing.net>, and <rhirecruiting.net> domain names resolve Internet users to websites featuring hyperlinks to businesses that compete with Complainant’s hiring services. The Panel finds that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain names disrupts Complainant’s business and also provided evidence that the domain names were registered and used in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶4(b) (iii). See Red Hat, Inc. v. Haecke, FA 726010 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 24, 2006) (finding that the respondent engaged in bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶4(b)(iii) by using the disputed domain names to operate a commercial search engine with links to the products of the complainant and to complainant’s competitors, as well as by diverting internet users to several other domain names); see also A. Airlines, Inc. v. Tex. Int’l Prop. Assoc., FA 914854 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 10, 2007) (holding that where the respondent’s website featured hyperlinks to competing websites and included a link to the complainant’s website, the respondent’s use of the <redeemaamiles.com> domain name constituted disruption under Policy ¶4(b)(iii).
Complainant’s Exhibit 12 shows Respondents <accounttempstaffing.com> web page, and <accounttempstaffing.net> web page, both of which contain Quick Links entitled “employment agencies, employment recruiters and temporary services” which resolve to websites featuring hyperlinks to Complainant’s competitors in the temporary hiring and staffing business. Panel infers that Internet users may become confused as to Complainant’s sponsorship of, and affiliation with, the disputed domain names, resolving websites and posted hyperlinks. The Panel finds this redirection to be evidence of Respondent’s bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain names pursuant to Policy ¶4(b)(iv). See Red Hat, Inc. v. Haecke, FA 726010 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 24, 2006) (finding that the respondent engaged in bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶4(b)(iv) by using the disputed domain names to operate a commercial search engine with links to the products of the Complainant and to Complainant’s competitors, as well as by diverting Internet users to several other domain names); see also Univ. of Houston Sys. v. Salvia Corp., FA 637920 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 21, 2006) (“Respondent is using the disputed domain name to operate a website which features links to competing and non-competing commercial websites from which Respondent presumably receives referral fees. Such use for Respondent’s own commercial gain is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).”).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <accounttempsstaffing.com>, <accounttempsstaffing.net>, <officeteamstaffing.net>, <rhistaffing.net> and <rhirecruiting.net> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Carol Stoner, Esq., Panelist
Dated: May 24, 2011
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page