WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Society for Human Resource Management v. Domain Privacy Guard Sociedad Anónima Ltd Domain Admin Case No. D2019-1200 1. The Parties

The Complainant is Society for Human Resource Management, United States of America (“United States” or “US”), represented by Gavin Law Offices, PLC, United States.

The Respondent is Domain Privacy Guard Sociedad Anónima Ltd Domain Admin, Panama. 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 24, 2019. On May 27, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Name. On May 28, 2019, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details and contact information for the disputed domain name.

The Center verified that 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 May 31, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was June 20, 2019. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on June 21, 2019.

The Center appointed David Stone as the sole panelist in this matter on June 28, 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 is one of the world’s largest human resources professional societies, representing over 300,000 members in over 165 countries. It has 575 affiliated chapters within the United States, and has subsidiary offices in China, India, and the United Arab Emirates.

The Complainant owns US federal trade mark registrations in connection with a wide variety of marks, a relevant selection of which (the “Marks”) is as follows.

- SHRM: registration number 168891, registered on December 17, 1991 in Nice class 42,

- SHRM (device): registration number 3554541, registered on December 30, 2008 in Nice class 9,

- SHRM (device): registration number 3557975, registered on January 6, 2009 in Nice class 16,

- SHRM (device): registration number 3651545, registered on July 7, 2009 in Nice class 42,

- SHRM SOCIETY FOR HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT (device): registration number 3669687, registered on August 18, 2009 in Nice class 42,

- SHRM-CP (certification): registration number 4837711, registered on October 20, 2015 in US class B,

- SHRM-SCP (certification): registration number 48477057, registered on November 3, 2015 in US class B,

- SHRM CERTIFIED PROFESSIONAL (certification): registration number 4852106, registered on November 10, 2015 in US class B, and

- SHRM SENIOR CERITIFIED PROFESSIONAL (certification): registration number 4852107, registered on November 10, 2015 in US class B.

The Marks identify a wide variety of human resources management goods and services. These include the Complainant’s certification programmes, SHRM CERTIFIED PROFESSIONAL (SHRM-CP) and SHRM SENIOR CERTIFIED PROFESSIONAL (SHRM-SCP), which are accredited by The Buros Center for Testing. Only professionals with specific educational and work experience are eligible to earn either credential. So far, nearly 100,000 professionals have been certified by the Complainant.

The Complainant has registered many domain names that incorporate the Marks, including , , , and . The Complainant’s website at “www.” has been in operation since May 1996. The other listed domain names redirect users to the sections of the Complainant’s webpage featuring information about its certification programmes.

The Disputed Domain Name was registered on August 3, 2016 and resolves to a page displaying pay‑per‑click links. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant

The Complainant submits that its registration and use of the Marks, for almost 30 years in the case of SHRM, is evidence of the Complainant’s long-standing rights in the Marks in the provision of human resources management services and human resources accreditation services. In particular, the Complainant’s ownership of the Marks means that only it may confirm that an individual has met the requisite eligibility requirements and has demonstrated a sufficiently high level of knowledge and competency in the field of human resources management to achieve accreditation. The Complainant believes the Marks are therefore renowned in the human resources industry.

The Complainant contends that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Marks. The entirety of the mark SHRM, which is the dominant feature of the other Marks, is contained in the Disputed Domain Name, and the renown of the Marks is such that any use of SHRM in connection with goods and services related to human resources management will result in confusion. The presence of the descriptive word “cerification”, a minor misspelling of “certification”, does not serve to distinguish the Disputed Doman Name but instead increases the likelihood of confusion because it identifies the services offered by the Complainant. This misspelling is an example of typo-squatting, which the Complainant says results in confusing similarity, in particular by comparison with the Complainant’s registered domain name . The similarity between the Disputed Domain Name and the Marks is not affected by the presence of the Top-Level Domain (“TLD”) “.org”, which is ignored in this assessment.

The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name. The Respondent is not commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name and is not authorized by the C