Robert Half International Inc. v. Amend gelditu
Claim Number: FA2212002025251
Complainant is Robert Half International Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Robert Weisbein of Foley & Lardner LLP, New York. Respondent is Amend gelditu (“Respondent”), Germany.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <roberthalfrecruiting.com>, registered with NameCheap, Inc..
The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Richard Hill as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on December 23, 2022; Forum received payment on December 23, 2022.
On Dec 26, 2022, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <roberthalfrecruiting.com> domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. NameCheap, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameCheap, Inc. 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 December 28, 2022, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of January 17, 2023 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@roberthalfrecruiting.com. Also on December 28, 2022, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the e-mail 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.
Having received no response from Respondent, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On January 18, 2023, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Richard Hill as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") "to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent" through submission of Electronic and Written Notices, as defined in Rule 1 and Rule 2. Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant states that it is one of the world’s largest specialized employment staffing agencies. Since its founding in 1948, Complainant has provided its clients with skilled professionals in the fields of accounting and finance, technology, legal, creative, marketing, and administration. Complainant has more than 400 consulting and staffing locations throughout the world and employs over 10,000 employees. Over the three (3) year period ending in 2021 alone, Complainant, through itself and its subsidiary, Protiviti Inc., have rendered services, many of which are ROBERT HALF-branded services, that have exceeded five billion U.S. dollars ($5,000,000,000) in revenues annually. Complainant has rights in the ROBERT HALF mark through its registration in multiple jurisdictions, including in the United States in 1981.
Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its ROBERT HALF mark as it includes the entire mark and merely adds the generic term “recruiting” and the “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”).
According to Complainant, Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor has Complainant authorized or licensed Respondent to use its ROBERT HALF mark in any way. Respondent does not use the disputed domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services, nor for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, the disputed domain name resolves to a parked page displaying advertising hyperlinks, some of which are for services that compete with those of Complainant.
Further, says Complainant, Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent attracts users for commercial gain by hosting competing advertising hyperlinks. Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual and/or constructive knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the ROBERT HALF mark.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant owns the mark ROBERT HALF and uses it to provide employment staffing services.
Complainant’s rights in its mark date back to at least 1981.
The disputed domain name was registered in 2022.
Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark.
The resolving website displays advertising hyperlinks, some of which are for services that compete with those of Complainant.
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:
(1) the domain name registered by Respondent is 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 name; and
(3) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
In view of Respondent's failure to submit a response, the Panel shall decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant's undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(f), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and draw such inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules. The Panel is entitled to accept all reasonable allegations set forth in a complaint; however, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory or unsubstantiated arguments. See WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 at ¶ 4.3; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (“Because Complainant did not produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations [. . .] the Panel finds it appropriate to dismiss the Complaint”).
The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant’s ROBERT HALF mark in its entirety and merely adds the generic term “recruiting” and the “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”). Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), adding a generic term to a mark along with the “.com” gTLD is insufficient in differentiating a domain name from the mark it incorporates. See MTD Products Inc v J Randall Shank, FA 1783050 (Forum June 27, 2018) (“The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark as it wholly incorporates the CUB CADET mark before appending the generic terms ‘genuine’ and ‘parts’ as well as the ‘.com’ gTLD.”); see also Indeed, Inc. v. aniket Mishra, FA1912001873513 (Forum Dec. 28, 2019) (finding the domain name <indeedrecruiter.com> confusingly similar to complainant’s INDEED mark despite the addition of the generic term “recruiter). Therefore the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name: under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), relevant WHOIS information may demonstrate that a Respondent is not commonly known by a disputed domain name. See Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Dale Anderson, FA1504001613011 (Forum May 21, 2015) (concluding that because the WHOIS record lists “Dale Anderson” as the registrant of the disputed domain name, the respondent was not commonly known by the <statefarmforum.com> domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)). Here, the WHOIS information of record identifies the registrant as “Amend gelditu”. Thus the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
The resolving website hosts advertising hyperlinks, some of which are for competing services. Under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii), hosting hyperlinks is not a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See TGI Friday’s of Minnesota, Inc. v. Tulip Company / Tulip Trading Company, FA 1691369 (Forum Oct. 10, 2016) (”Respondent uses the domain for a parking page displaying various links that consumers are likely to associate with Complainant, but that simply redirect to additional advertisements and links that divert traffic to third-party websites not affiliated with Complainant… The Panel here finds that Respondent is not using the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services.”); see also The Toronto-Dominion Bank v. GEORGE WASHERE, FA 1785311 (Forum June 7, 2018) (“Respondent’s confusingly similar <esecuretdbank.com> domain name references a website displaying links to competing third parties as well as links to Complainant and various unrelated third parties. Using the domain name in this manner shows neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”). The Panel therefore finds that Respondent fails to use the disputed domain name to make a bona fide offering of goods or services, or a noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). And the Panel finds that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
Respondent (who did not reply to Complainant’s contentions) has not presented any plausible explanation for its use of Complainant’s mark. In accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel shall draw such inferences from Respondent’s failure to reply as it considers appropriate. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent did not have a legitimate use in mind when registering the disputed domain name.
Indeed, as already noted, the resolving website displays competing advertising hyperlinks from which Respondent likely derives revenue. Under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv), attracting users to respondent’s website for its own commercial gain is evidence of bad faith registration and use. See Danbyg Ejendomme A/S v. lb Hansen / guerciotti, FA1504001613867 (Forum June 2, 2015) (finding that the respondent registered and used the domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where the disputed domain name resolved to a website that offered both competing hyperlinks and hyperlinks unrelated to the complainant’s business). Therefore the Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith under 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 <roberthalfrecruiting.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Richard Hill, Panelist
Dated: January 19, 2023
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page