Careers-vsp.com

The timeline behind careers-vsp.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 Vision Service Plan v. kent jose Case No. D2026-1232 1. The Parties Complainant is Vision Service Plan, United States of America (“United States” or “U.S.”), represented by SILKA AB, Sweden. Respondent is kent jose, United States. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <careers-vsp.com> (the “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 March 23, 2026. On March 23, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On March 23, 2026, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response, disclosing registrant and contact information for the Domain Name which differed from the named Respondent (Privacy User #1565e86f, See PrivacyGuardian.org) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to Complainant on March 25, 2026, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. Complainant filed an amendment to the Complaint on March 26, 2026. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to 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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on March 27, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was April 16, 2026. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on April 17, 2026. page 2 The Center appointed Kimberley Chen Nobles as the sole panelist in this matter on April 27, 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 Founded in 1955, Complainant is a U.S.-based vision-care organization that provides vision insurance, eyewear solutions, ophthalmic technology, and practice-management services. Complainant serves approximately 85 million members, with over 137,000 access points across the United States, Canada, Australia, Ireland, and the United Kingdom. Complainant is headquartered in California, United States, and employs over 14,000 people worldwide. In 2024, Complainant invested more than USD 11.3 million in local communities to increase equitable access to vision care, enabling more than 4 million people in need to access eye care and eyewear. Complainant owns several registered trademarks in various jurisdictions, including: - United States registered trademark number 2324613 for the VSP word mark, registered on February 29, 2000; - United Kingdom registered trademark number UK00905538145 for the VSP word mark, registered on November 22, 2007; and - Australian registered trademark number 1521728 for the VSP word mark, registered on October 24, 2012. Complainant also owns and operates the domain names <vsp.com> and <vspvision.com>, which enable Internet users to locate eye doctors, browse vision plans, etc. Complainant has operated the domain name <vsp.com> for its business for over 25 years and the domain name <vspvision.com> since 2022. The Domain Name was registered on February 22, 2026 and prior to the filing of the Complaint, redirected to a website under the domain name <resultsfindernow.com> which featured various pay- per-click (“PPC”) links to third party websites with banners such as “Visual Care Jobs Local”, “Jobs in Optometry”, and “Vision Therapy Technician Jobs”. The Domain Name was also used to facilitate the sending of phishing emails to job seekers, informing the email recipients that they had supposedly been hired to fill the position of Business Analyst with the Complainant. In subsequent communications, the purported Recruitment Officer, impersonating the Complainant, requested personal data from the recipients. On or around March 17, 2026, the Domain Name resolved to an error or inactive site. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the Domain Name. Notably, Complainant contends that (i) the Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark; (ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name; and (iii) Respondent registered and is using the Domain Name in bad faith. page 3 In particular, Complainant contends that it has trademark registrations and rights for VSP and that Respondent registered and is using the Domain Name, with the intention to confuse Internet users looking for Complainant’s bona fide and well-known services. Complainant notes that it has no affiliation with Respondent, nor authorized Respondent to register or use a domain name which includes Complainant’s trademark, and that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. Rather, Complainant contends that Respondent has acted in bad faith in acquiring and setting up the Domain Name, when Respondent clearly knew of Complainant’s rights. Specifically, Complainant argues that Respondent used the Domain Name to redirect users to a third party website offering competing services and to set up email capabilities, posing as Complainant, to send phishing emails. B. Respondent Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, to succeed Complainant must satisfy the Panel that: (i) the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; (ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and (iii) the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Section 4.3 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Select UDRP Questions (“WIPO Overview 3.1”) states that failure to respond to complainant’s contentions would not by itself mean that the complainant is deemed to have prevailed; a respondent’s default is not necessarily an admission that the complainant’s claims are true. Thus, although in this case Respondent has failed to respond to the Complaint, the burden remains with Complainant to establish the three elements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy by a preponderance of the evidence. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar Complainant has provided evidence of its rights in the VSP trademark, as noted above. Complainant has therefore proven that it has the requisite rights in the VSP trademark. With Complainant’s rights in the VSP trademark established, the remaining question under the first element of the Policy is whether the Domain Name, typically disregarding the Top-Level Domain in which it was registered (in this case, “.com”), is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark. See, e.g., B & H Foto & Electronics Corp. v. Domains by Proxy, Inc. / Joseph Gross, WIPO Case No. D2010-0842. Here, the Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s VSP trademark. The VSP trademark is recognizable in the Domain Name. The addition of the term “careers-” before Complainant’s VSP trademark in the Domain Name does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the Domain Name and the VSP trademark. See section 1.8 of the WIPO Overview 3.1. Thus, the Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied the first element of the Policy. page 4 B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, a complainant must make a prima facie showing that a respondent possesses no rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name. See, e.g., Malayan Banking Berhad v. Beauty, Success & Truth International, WIPO Case No. D2008-1393. Once a complainant makes such a prima facie showing, the burden of production shifts to the respondent, though the burden of proof always remains on the complainant. If the respondent fails to come forward with relevant evidence showing rights or legitimate interests, the complainant will have sustained its burden under the second element of the UDRP. From the record in this case, it is evident that Respondent was, and is, aware of Complainant and its VSP trademark and does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. Complainant has confirmed that Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant, or otherwise authorized or licensed to use the VSP trademark or to seek registration of any domain name incorporating this trademark. Respondent is also not known to be associated with the VSP trademark and there is no evidence showing that Respondent has been commonly known by the Domain Name. In addition, Respondent has not used the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Rather, the record shows that the Domain Name resolved to a website which feature various PPC links to third party websites with banners such as “Visual Care Jobs Local”, “Jobs in Optometry”, and “Vision Therapy Technician Jobs”, which were directly related to the field of Complainant’s business activities and services. The record also showed that Respondent used the Domain Name to set up email communications capability, which enabled Respondent to send fraudulent emails to job seekers, purporting to offer employment to job seekers, from someone associated with an email address associated with the Domain Name, signed by a person identifying himself in his signature block as a “Recruitment Officer”, and informing the email recipients that they had supposedly been hired to fill the position of Business Analyst with Complainant. In subsequent communications, the purported Recruitment Officer, impersonating Complainant, requested personal data from the recipients (including telephone number, email address, postal address) and a copy of their ID card. Complainant confirmed that the emails were not sent or authorized by Complainant and submits they were sent to fraudulently impersonate Complainant. UDRP panels have consistently held that use of a domain name for illegitimate activity - such as phishing or passing off as in this case - can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.13.1. Accordingly, Complainant has provided evidence supporting its prima facie showing that Respondent lacks any rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. Respondent has failed to produce countervailing evidence of any rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. Thus, the Panel concludes that Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name and Complainant has met its burden under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel finds that Respondent’s actions indicate that Respondent registered and is using the Domain Name in bad faith. Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy provides a non-exhaustive list of circumstances indicating bad faith registration and use on the part of a respondent, namely: page 5 “(i) circumstances indicating that you have registered or you have acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of your documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or (ii) you have registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that you have engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or (iii) you have registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or (iv) by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your website or location or of a product or service on your website or location.” The Panel finds that Complainant has provided ample evidence to show that registration and use of the VSP trademark predate the registration of the Domain Name. Complainant is also well established and known in its business sector. Complainant also owns and operates the domain names <vsp.com> and <vspvision.com>. Further, the composition of the Domain Name, which is confusingly similar to Complainant’s VSP trademarks, further suggests Respondent’s actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the VSP trademarks at the time of registration of the Domain Name and its effort to opportunistically capitalize on Complainant’s trademark through the registration and use of the Domain Name. Therefore, and also noting the use analysis below, the Panel finds on balance that Respondent was clearly aware of the VSP trademark when it registered the Domain Name. The Panel therefore finds that Respondent’s awareness of Complainant’s trademark rights at the time of registration suggests bad faith. See Red Bull GmbH v. Credit du Léman SA, Jean-Denis Deletraz, WIPO Case No. D2011-2209; Nintendo of America Inc v. Marco Beijen, Beijen Consulting, Pokemon Fan Clubs Org., and Pokemon Fans Unite, WIPO Case No. D2001-1070; and w. Moreover, Respondent was using the Domain Name to host a PPC or monetizing page that included links for various services that were directly related to Complainant’s services and its VSP trademark. The webpage featured banners such as “Visual Care Jobs Local”, “Jobs in Optometry”, and “Vision Therapy Technician Jobs”, which were directly in the field of Complainant’s business activities and services. The Domain Name was also used for sending phishing emails. Such use by Respondent does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use and cannot under the circumstances confer on Respondent any rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. UDRP panels have consistently held that a respondent’s use of a domain name to trade off goodwill in a complainant’s trademark and impersonate complainant, as here, constitutes bad faith. Moreover, such use of the Domain Name may potentially result in tarnishing Complainant’s reputation and goodwill. Therefore, the Panel finds, by using the Domain Name, Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent’s website by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s VSP marks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent’s website. At the time of the Decision, the Domain Name resolves to an error page, which would not prevent a finding of bad faith under the circumstances of this case. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.3. page 6 In the present circumstances, considering the reputation of the VSP trademark, and Respondent’s use of the Domain Name, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the Domain Name in bad faith. Therefore, the Panel finds that Complainant succeeds under the third element of paragraph 4(a) 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 Domain Name <careers-vsp.com> be transferred to Complainant. /Kimberley Chen Nobles/ Kimberley Chen Nobles Sole Panelist Date: May 4, 2026

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