Pride-stafflabor.com + 8 more domains

The timeline behind pride-stafflabor.com

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

How each disputed name was decided in this proceeding.

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. Kevin Zhang, Cohesive Case No. D2026-0362 1. The Parties The Complainant is PrideStaff, Inc., United States of America (“United States”), represented by Frost Brown Todd Gibbons LLP, United States. The Respondent is Kevin Zhang, Cohesive, United States. 2. The Domain Names and Registrar The disputed domain names <pride-stafflabor.com>, <pridestafflabor.com>, <pride-staff-services.com>, <pride-staffservices.com>, <pridestaff-services.com>, <pridestaffservices.com>, <pride-staffsolutions.com>, <pridestaff-solutions.com>, and <pridestaffsolutions.com> are registered with Gransy, s.r.o. d/b/a subreg.cz (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 names. On February 2, 2026, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain names 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 4, 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 9, 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 13, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 5, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Parties of the Respondent’s default on March 9, 2026. page 2 The Center appointed Ingrīda Kariņa-Bērziņa as the sole panelist in this matter on March 16, 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 operates a business offering professional staffing services in the United States. It is the proprietor of United States Trademark Registration No. 2116589 for PRIDESTAFF (word mark), registered on November 25, 1997, for services in class 35. The Complainant operates its primary business website at the domain name <pridestaff.com>, which it registered in 1996. The disputed domain names were registered on October 14, 2025. At the time of this Decision, they did not resolve to active websites. The record contains evidence that they previously redirected to the Complainant’s website. In addition, the record contains evidence that e-mail exchange (“MX”) records have been configured for all the disputed domain names. 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 names. Notably, the Complainant contends that it was founded in 1978 and is one of the most well-known staffing firms in the United States. Today, the Complainant has over 85 offices nationwide. The PRIDESTAFF mark has been used since at least 1995 and has become well-known in the staffing industry. The disputed domain names reflect this mark together with descriptive terms. They all redirect to the Complainant’s website, but the Respondent is not associated with the Complainant and not authorized to use its mark. The Respondent is passively holding the disputed domain names in bad faith and is preventing the Complainant from obtaining them. The creation of MX records indicates an intention to use the disputed domain names for email communications in bad faith. The stated Respondent organization has no connection to staffing services. The Complainant requests transfer of 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 UDRP requires the Complainant to make out all three of the following: (i) the disputed domain names are 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 names; and (iii) the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain names in bad faith. page 3 Under paragraph 15(a) of the Rules, “[a] Panel shall decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable”. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. The standing (or threshold) test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Select UDRP Questions (“WIPO Overview 3.1”), section 1.7. The Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trademark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.2.1. The Panel finds the mark is recognizable within the disputed domain names. Accordingly, the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.7. Although the addition of other terms (here, “services,” “labor,” and “solutions”) may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds the addition of such terms does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.8. 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 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 names. The Respondent has not rebutted the Complainant’s prima facie showing and has not come forward with any relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise. The Panel notes the composition of the disputed domain names, which comprise the Complainant’s PRIDESTAFF mark together with descriptive terms that directly relate to the Complainant’s business. The Panel finds that the nature of the disputed domain names therefore carries a risk of implied affiliation to the Complainant that cannot constitute fair use. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.5.1. The Respondent has not put forward any rights or legitimate interests. There is no evidence that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain names, or that there are any circumstances or activities that would establish the Respondent’s rights therein. Rather, the evidence indicates that the disputed domain names previously redirected to the Complainant’s website at <pridestaff.com>, and that page 4 they are now inactive. Neither use establishes rights or legitimate interests. See WIPO Overview 3.1, sections 2.5.2 and 2.5.3. 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 establishes circumstances, in particular, but without limitation, that, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith. In the present case, the Panel notes that the disputed domain names were registered more than 25 years after the Complainant registered its PRIDESTAFF mark. The composition of the disputed domain names reflects the Complainant’s mark together with the terms “services”, “labor”, and “solutions”, implying an affiliation with the Complainant’s business offering staffing services and solutions. Such composition indicates that the Respondent sought to create the appearance of an association with the Complainant. Together with the use to which the disputed domain names have been put, on this record, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names were registered in bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.1.4. The Panel finds that use of the disputed domain names to redirect to the Complainant’s website is evidence of bad faith. Moreover, the record reflects that the Respondent has configured MX records for the disputed domain names. In light of the finding that the Respondent has no rights in the disputed domain names, the Panel considers that preparatory actions for sending emails from the inherently misleading disputed domain names indicate a risk that the Respondent may use the disputed domain names in bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.4. 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 names <pride-stafflabor.com>, <pridestafflabor.com>, <pride-staff-services.com>, <pride-staffservices.com>, <pridestaff-services.com>, <pridestaffservices.com>, <pride-staffsolutions.com>, <pridestaff-solutions.com> and <pridestaffsolutions.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /Ingrīda Kariņa-Bērziņa/ Ingrīda Kariņa-Bērziņa Sole Panelist Date: March 25, 2026

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