Westmore · UDRP DecisionRoberthalfgobenefits.com
The Panel ordered transfer of <roberthalfgobenefits.com>, finding it confusingly similar to Complainant’s registered ROBERT HALF mark, finding Respondent lacked rights or legitimate interests, and finding bad-faith registration and use through a pay-per-click website designed to attract users for commercial gain by creating confusion with the mark.
The timeline behind roberthalfgobenefits.com
Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.
Westmore reconstructs the full history behind roberthalfgobenefits.com — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive — as part of UDRP Intelligence:
The Panel found Respondent was fully aware of the ROBERT HALF mark when registering the domain and intentionally used the domain to attract Internet users for commercial gain by creating confusion as to source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement, establishing bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).
Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.
DECISION Robert Half International Inc. v. Domain Administrator Claim Number: FA2210002017619 PARTIES Complainant is Robert Half International Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Robert Weisbein of Foley & Lardner LLP, New York. Respondent is Domain Administrator (“Respondent”), Nigeria. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <roberthalfgobenefits.com>, registered with Sav.com, LLC. PANEL The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding. Alan L. Limbury, as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on October 26, 2022. Forum received payment on October 26, 2022. On Oct 26, 2022, Sav.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <roberthalfgobenefits.com> domain name is registered with Sav.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Sav.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Sav.com, LLC registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”). On October 31, 2022, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of November 21, 2022 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@roberthalfgobenefits.com. Also on October 31, 2022, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the e-mail addresses served and the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to Respondent via post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts. Having received no response from Respondent, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default. On November 29, 2022, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Alan L. Limbury as Panelist. Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") "to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent" through submission of Electronic and Written Notices, as defined in Rule 1 and Rule 2. Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent. RELIEF SOUGHT Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant Founded in 1948, Complainant, Robert Half International Inc., is one of the world’s largest specialized employment staffing agencies, providing its clients with skilled professionals in the fields of accounting and finance, technology, legal, creative, marketing, and administration. Complainant has operated the website “www.roberthalf.com” since 1995 and has rights in the trademark ROBERT HALF, registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”). Respondent’s <roberthalfgobenefits.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark. Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the <roberthalfgobenefits.com> domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name, nor has Complainant authorized or licensed Respondent to use its ROBERT HALF mark. Respondent does not use the domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services, nor any legitimate noncommercial or fair use, but instead hosts parked pay-per-clicks on the domain name’s resolving website. Respondent registered the <roberthalfgobenefits.com> domain name in bad faith with actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the ROBERT HALF mark at the time of registration. Respondent uses the domain name to disrupt Complainant’s business for commercial gain by hosting parked, pay-per-click links on the domain name’s resolving website. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant has established all the elements entitling it to relief. DISCUSSION Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable." Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred: (1) the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and (2) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and (3) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. In view of Respondent's failure to submit a response, the Panel shall decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant's undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(f), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and draw such inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules. The Panel is entitled to accept all reasonable allegations set forth in a complaint; however, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory or unsubstantiated arguments. See WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 at ¶ 4.3; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (“Because Complainant did not produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations [. . .] the Panel finds it appropriate to dismiss the Complaint”). Identical and/or Confusingly Similar Complainant has shown that it has rights in the ROBERT HALF mark through registration with the USPTO (Reg. No. 1156612, registered June 02, 1981). The Panel finds Respondent’s <roberthalfgobenefits.com> domain name to be confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark, only differing by the addition of the descriptive phrase “go benefits”, which does not distinguish the domain name from the mark, and the inconsequential “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”), which may be ignored. Complainant has established this element. Rights or Legitimate Interests Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy sets out three illustrative circumstances as examples which, if established by Respondent, shall demonstrate rights to or legitimate interests in the domain name for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, i.e. (i) before any notice to Respondent of the dispute, the use by Respondent of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or (ii) Respondent (as an individual, business or other organization) has been commonly known by the domain name, even if Respondent has acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or (iii) Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert customers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue. The <roberthalfgobenefits.com> domain name was registered on February 18, 2022, many years after Complainant has shown that its ROBERT HALF mark had become very well-known. It resolves to a website with pay-per-click links some of which relate to Complainant and its business or redirect Internet users to third-party websites. These circumstances, together with Complainant’s assertions, are sufficient to constitute a prima facie showing of absence of rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name on the part of Respondent. The evidentiary burden therefore shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the <roberthalfgobenefits.com> domain name. See JUUL Labs, Inc. v. Dryx Emerson / KMF Events LTD, FA1906001849706 (Forum July 17, 2019). Respondent has made no attempt to do so. The Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name. Complainant has established this element. Registration and Use in Bad Faith Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out four illustrative circumstances, which, though not exclusive, shall be evidence of the registration and use of the domain name in bad faith for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, including: (iv) by using the domain name, Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent’s website or location or of a product or service on its website or location. The circumstances set out above in relation to the second element satisfy the Panel that Respondent was fully aware of Complainant’s ROBERT HALF mark when Respondent registered the <roberthalfgobenefits.com> domain name and that Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent’s website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent’s website and of the services promoted on that website. This demonstrates registration and use in bad faith to attract users for commercial gain under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). Complainant has established this element. DECISION Complainant having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED. Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <roberthalfgobenefits.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Alan L. Limbury, Panelist Dated: December 2, 2022. Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page. Click Here to return to our Home Page
Source of record: FORUM . Reproduced for research; FORUM is the authoritative source.
What Westmore sees around roberthalfgobenefits.com
The decision is only the record. Westmore connects it to the cases, authorities, panelists, parties and domain evidence surrounding it.

A short, grounded explanation drawn only from this decision's record — not legal advice or a prediction.
Grounded in the Westmore record for this decision. Research/informational only — not legal advice or a prediction of any outcome.
The decision is only the beginning.
You've seen what happened. Now discover the deeper intelligence behind the case, the panelist, the parties and the authorities that matter.
Go beyond the public record: see how this case has been cited, find comparable decisions, analyze the panelist and apply the relevant authorities to your Matter.
Westmore Professional · $395/month
Research with UDRP IntelligenceWestmore AI drafts an attorney-review-ready UDRP response from your facts, grounded in the exact panel and closest precedent.
$895 one-time per matter · no subscription required. Self-help drafting aid — not legal advice.
Build your responseWestmore UDRP records draw on FORUM-indexed decisions and are provided for research and informational purposes only. Not legal advice, a clearance opinion, or a prediction of any outcome.