WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Hays plc. v. Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC / Nayyer Khan Case No. D2019-1146 1. The Parties

The Complainant is Hays plc, United Kingdom, represented by Osborne Clarke LLP, United Kingdom.

The Respondent is Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC, United States of America (“United States”) / Nayyer Khan, Australia. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name is registered with GoD, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on May 17, 2019. On May 17, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On May 20, 2019, 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 May 23, 2019, 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 amended Complaint on May 24, 2019.

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 the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on May 29, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was June 18, 2019. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on June 20, 2019.

The Center appointed Andrew Brown Q.C. as the sole panelist in this matter on June 27, 2019. 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

The Complainant states that it is the leading global expert in qualified, professional and skilled recruitment. It employs approximately 11,000 people around the world to partner with clients and candidates providing recruitment services in 33 countries and is an FTSE 250 company.

The Complainant also states that it (and its predecessors in title) was founded over 50 years ago and started as the “Career Care Group”. In 1986, the Career Care Group was acquired by Hays plc and re-branded to HAYS, which is the core part of the Complainant’s business today.

The Complainant is the owner of a number of trade marks covering the HAYS brand and registered internationally including, but not limited to the United Kingdom, Europe and the United States.

Example trade marks include:

- United Kingdom trade mark No. 00001395978 for HAYS in class 35, registered on October 16, 1992,

- European Union trade mark No. 000005637 for HAYS in class 35, registered on October 19, 1999,

- European Union trade mark No. 10544732 for HAYS RECRUITING EXPERTS WORLDWIDE in class 35, registered on May 17, 2012,

- United States trade mark No. 4043786 for HAYS in class 35, registered on October 25, 2011.

The Complainant’s marks are collectively referred to as the “HAYS Mark”.

The disputed domain name was created on February 14, 2019 (the “Relevant Date”).

The Complainant states that in March 2019, it came to the Complainant’s attention that the Respondent was allegedly providing recruitment services under the sign HaysRecruiters through the website “www.” connected to the disputed domain name. On April 10, 2019, the Complainant states that its representatives sent a letter to the Respondent complaining of trade mark infringement. No response was received. On April 11, 2019, the Complainant states that its representatives notified the host provider of the website at the disputed domain name, NameCheap Inc of the Respondent’s activities. NameCheap, Inc reviewed the complaint and disabled access to the website at the disputed domain name. However, the Complainant states that the Respondent has since moved hosting provider and the disputed domain name now revolves to a website at “www.”. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant

The Complainant asserts its rights in the HAYS Mark. The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its HAYS Mark. It states that the disputed domain name incorporates the HAYS Mark in its entirety. It also states that given the relevant services relate to recruitment and/or employment advisory services, the term “recruiters” in the disputed domain name is non-distinctive. In support, the Complainant has provided to the Panel, evidence of actual confusion. It states that on three separate occasions it has been contacted by members of the public asking if the Respondent was the Complainant and if job offers being made were legitimate.

The Complainant also contends that the Respondent has no rights to the disputed domain name. In this respect, the Complainant contends that the Respondent has no genuine business relating to the disputed domain name.

The Complainant also contends that the Respondent has no legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The Complainant contends that the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name is to take unfair advantage of the HAYS Mark for the purposes of engaging with members of the public to fraudulently extract personal information as part of a phishing scam.

Finally, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Complainant contends that the Respondent does not appear to be offering recruitment services and has deliberately attempted to cause confusion and take unfair advantage of the Complainant’s HAYS Mark for the purpose of defrauding personal information from individuals for commercial gain. B. Respondent

The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussio