Pridestaffhr.com

The timeline behind pridestaffhr.com

Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.

Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.

ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION PrideStaff, Inc. v. James Armitage Case No. D2026-0361 1. The Parties The Complainant is PrideStaff, Inc., United States of America, represented by FBT Gibbons LLP, United States of America. The Respondent is James Armitage, United States of America. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <pridestaffhr.com> (the “Disputed Domain Name”) is registered with NameSilo, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on January 28, 2026. On January 29, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Name. On January 29, 2026, 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 (REDACTED FOR PRIVACY) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on February 6, 2026, 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 February 11, 2026. 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 February 12, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 4, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on March 5, 2026. page 2 The Center appointed Peter J. Dernbach as the sole panelist in this matter on March 13, 2026. 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, founded in 1978, is a well-known staffing and human resources company based in California, United States of America (USA). The Complainant owns the trademark registration in USA for the PRIDESTAFF mark, Registration No. 2,116,589, registered on November 25, 1997 (the “PRIDESTAFF Mark”), for use in connection with, among other things, employment agency and personnel placement services, with a first use date of March 1, 1995. The PRIDESTAFF Mark has acquired a status of incontestability. Additionally, the Complainant operates its website at <pridestaff.com>. The Disputed Domain Name was registered on September 30, 2025, and has been configured with mail exchange (MX) records. At the time of drafting the decision, the Disputed Domain Name resolves to an error page. According to the Registrar, the Respondent is James Armitage, with a reported physical address in the USA, and an email address ending in “@randstadtalentsusa.com”. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the Disputed Domain Name. (i) The Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights. The Complainant contends that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the PRIDESTAFF Mark because it incorporates the trademark in its entirety. The addition of the elements “hr” and “.com” in the Disputed Domain Name does not negate the confusing similarity. (ii) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name. The Complainant asserts that the Respondent is neither a franchisee nor affiliated with Complainant. Nor is the Respondent doing business as “PrideStaff” or “PrideStaffHR.” Furthermore, the Respondent is using the Disputed Domain Name for illegitimate purposes which do not equate to a bona fide offering of services in connection with the Disputed Domain Name. (iii) The Disputed Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. The Complainant argues that the Respondent is passively holding the Disputed Domain Name to prevent the Complainant from obtaining rightful ownership. The Complainant asserts that the Disputed Domain Name is obviously connected with the Complainant, and its registration by the Respondent suggests “opportunistic bad faith.” The Complainant further asserts that the Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name to capitalize on the goodwill of the PRIDESTAFF Mark among those seeking employment services. In addition, the Respondent’s use of a privacy shield and its provision of a false email address and non-existent physical address further evidence a deliberate effort to conceal its identity and act in bad faith. Moreover, the Disputed Domain Name’s MX-records demonstrate the Respondent’s ability to send fraudulent emails that would falsely imply an affiliation with the Complainant’s human resources department. Finally, the page 3 Complainant notes that its PRIDESTAFF Mark had been well-known long before the Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy lists three elements, which the Complainant must satisfy with respect to the Disputed Domain Name: (i) the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; (ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name; and (iii) the Disputed Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar As a threshold issue, the Panel finds that the Complainant has successfully demonstrated its rights in the PRIDESTAFF Mark for the purposes of the Policy through its longstanding registration and continuous use. The Panel finds the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the PRIDESTAFF Mark as the Disputed Domain Name incorporates the Mark in its entirety. The addition of the term “hr” does not prevent such finding, since it is a common abbreviation for “human resources” and would highly likely be perceived to directly relate to the Complainant's professional staffing services. Furthermore, the Top-Level Domain “.com” is disregarded in the assessment of similarity, following standard UDRP practice. Therefore, the Panel finds the first element of the Policy has been established. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances in which the Respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a Disputed Domain Name. Although the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, panels have recognized that proving that a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the difficult task of “proving a negative”, requiring information that is often primarily within the knowledge or control of the respondent. As such, where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name (although the burden of proof always remains on the complainant). If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Select UDRP Questions (“WIPO Overview 3.1”), section 2.1. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. The Complainant has asserted that the Respondent is neither a franchisee nor otherwise affiliated with Complainant. Additionally, considering the information disclosed by the Registrar (including the Respondent’s name “James Armitage”), the Panel does not find any evidence in the record that the Respondent has been commonly known by or has done business using the Disputed Domain Name. Moreover, the fact that the Disputed Domain Name does not resolve to any active content does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or for any legitimate noncommercial or fair-use purposes. The Respondent has not submitted any response and has failed to provide any evidence of rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise. page 4 Accordingly, the Panel finds the second element of the Policy has been established. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel notes that, for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out a list of non-exhaustive circumstances that may indicate that a domain name was registered and used in bad faith, but other circumstances may be relevant in assessing whether a respondent’s registration and use of a domain name is in bad faith, for instance, a domain name incorporating the complainant’s mark plus an additional term such as one that corresponds to the complainant’s area of activity. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.2.1. Moreover, panels have repeatedly confirmed that the non-use of a domain name would not by itself prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding. To the contrary, in looking at the totality of circumstances in each case, panels have found that the registration and non-use of a domain name can still constitute bad faith for purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.3. In this case, the Panel notes that the PRIDESTAFF Mark has been registered in USA since 1997 and the Complainant has operated its official website under the domain <pridestaff.com> since no later than 1998, both of which are significantly prior to the registration of the Disputed Domain Name. Considering the PRIDESTAFF Mark's continuous use and the Complainant’s recognized strength in the staffing industry as evidenced by the numerous awards the Complainant has won, and taking into account the Respondent's choice to fully incorporate the mark followed by the specific term “hr”—a widely used abbreviation for “human resources”—in the Disputed Domain Name, the Panel finds it extremely likely that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s trademark and domain and had it in mind at the time of registration of the Disputed Domain Name. The panel finds the Disputed Domain Name has been registered in bad faith. Regarding use in bad faith, the Panel notices the establishment of MX-records in connection with the Disputed Domain Name, which represents that the Respondent has been enabled to send and receive emails using the Disputed Domain Name, creating a high risk of fraudulent communication or impersonation of the Complainant’s human resources department. This supports a finding of use in bad faith. Additionally, the Panel notes that the physical address provided by the Respondent to the Registrar is non- existent. Furthermore, the Respondent’s email address ending in “@randstadtalentsusa.com” on record with the Registrar appears to be a fraudulent imitation of Randstad, another entity operating in the HR services sector. Such provision of false, misleading contact information is compelling evidence of the Respondent’s deliberate effort to conceal identity for improper purposes. Considering the foregoing in tandem with the overall circumstances, through the application of the passive holding doctrine, the Panel finds the Disputed Domain Name is used in bad faith under the Policy. Therefore, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established the third element of the Policy. 7. Decision For 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 <pridestaffhr.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /Peter J. Dernbach/ Peter J. Dernbach Sole Panelist Date: March 24, 2026

Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.