The Respondent is Domain Admin, Privacy Protect, LLC (PrivacyProtect.org), United States / Domain Admin, Domain Privacy Guard Sociedad Anonima Ltd, Panama.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <sunriseseniorlivingcareers.com> (the “Disputed Domain Name”) is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on June 11, 2020. On June 12, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Name. On June 13, 2020, 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 and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on June 15, 2020 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 June 17, 2020.

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 June 24, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was July 14, 2020. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on July 15, 2020.

The Center appointed Peter Wild as the sole panelist in this matter on July 21, 2020. 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

Complainant has been a provider of senior living services in the United States since at least 1981 and has used the marks SUNRISE and SUNRISE SENIOR LIVING in the United States for many years. Complainant owns numerous United States registrations for its SUNRISE Marks, the earliest of which issued over 20 years ago. (i.e., United States registration no. 2313763 for SUNRISE, registered February 1, 2000; and, United States registration no. 2850729 for SUNRISE SENIOR LIVING, registered on June 8, 2004). Since 2000, Complainant has used the domain name <sunriseseniorliving.com> as the address for its website. Complainant has posted job openings for its services under “www.suriseliving.com/careers” and hired hundreds of employees through this website.

The Disputed Domain Name was registered on September 12, 2017, and links to a website containing pay-per-click (“PPC”) links for job listings and job interview scheduling.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

According to Complainant, the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademarks SUNRISE and SUNRISE SENIOR LIVING as they are included in their entirety and only adds a descriptive element “careers”.

Complainant claims to be one of the largest providers of senior living services in the United States with trademarks for SUNRISE and SUNRISE SENIOR LIVING going back more than 20 years. It also claims to have used the website under its own domain name at “www.sunriseseniorliving.com/careers” to recruit and hire a large number of staff over the years. According to Complainant, Respondent registered and is using the Disputed Domain Name to confuse consumers and people who are looking for jobs and attract them to the website under the Disputed Domain Name, to create a higher pay per click revenue. The Disputed Domain Name is therefore, according to Complainant, registered and used in bad faith.

Complainant furthermore claims that Respondent has no own rights or legitimate interest in the term “sunrise”, and that the Disputed Domain Name has been filed and is used in bad faith, using a descriptive addition to create consumer confusion and leading consumers to Respondent’s website for Respondent’s commercial gain.

B. Respondent

Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Disputed Domain Name contains, in its entirety and prominently, Complainant’s trademarks SUNRISE and SUNRISE SENIOR LIVING. The added term “careers” is purely descriptive for HR and staffing related services.

The WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Edition 3.0 (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.8 provides that “[w]here the relevant trademark is recognizable within the Disputed Domain Name, the addition of other terms […] would not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element”. Also see, e.g., Société des Produits Nestlé, WIPO Case No. D2009-0865. In line with this, the Panel decides that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademarks SUNRISE and SUNRISE SENIOR LIVING.

The first condition of the Policy is met.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant is required to make out a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, see Croatia Airlines d.d. v. Modern Empire Internet Ltd., WIPO Case No. D2003-0455. Once such prima facie case is made, Respondent carries the burden of demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. If Respondent fails to do so, Complainant is deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the UDRP.

There is no reason to believe that Respondent’s name somehow corresponds with the Disputed Domain Name, and Respondent does not appear to have any trademark rights associated with the terms “sunrise” or “sunrise senior living”. See VUR Village Trading No. 1 Limited t/a Village Hotels v. Carolina Rodrigues, Fundacion Comercio Electronico, WIPO Case No. D2019-1596.

Respondent is not identified in the WhoIs database as “sunrise” or another name with the element “sunrise”. From the available record, there is no evidence that Respondent is commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name. The Panel therefore finds under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy that Respondent is not commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name.

According to Complainant, Respondent is not affiliated with nor authorised by Complainant in any way to use the trademarks SUNRISE or SUNRISE SENIOR LIVING.

The fact that the website under the Disputed Domain Name directs the user to a PPC site is rather an indication of bad faith (see section 6C of this decision below), and not of own rights or legitimate interests.

Respondent did not claim any rights or legitimate interests, as it did not file a response at all.

Based on these facts, the Panel holds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name and the second condition of the Policy is met.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

Complainant owns numerous United States registrations for its SUNRISE and SUNRISE SENIOR LIVING marks and is one of the largest senior living providers in the United States. The oldest of these registrations issued more than 15 years before Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name. The Disputed Domain Name incorporates Complainant’s SUNRISE and SUNRISE SENIOR LIVING marks in full and is therefore confusingly similar to Complainant’s SUNRISE Marks. See, e.g., Johnson & Johnson v. Daniel Wistbacka, WIPO Case No. D2017-0709. The Panel finds it hard to see any plausible circumstance in which Respondent could legitimately have registered the Disputed Domain Name. Telstra Corp. Ltd. v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No. D2000-0003. For these reasons, the Panel holds that the Disputed Domain Name was registered in bad faith.

Complainant maintains a website at “www.sunriseseniorliving.com/careers” where it recruits personnel and provides information about its business and job openings to potential applicants. It is therefore very likely that Respondent registered the disputed domain name “to benefit from particular activities carried out by Complainant by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant” - namely, the online recruitment of job applicants. See e.g. Société des Produits Nestlé, WIPO Case No. D2009-865.

The website at the Disputed Domain Name displays PPC links to job listings and interview scheduling. Even if Respondent did not post those links itself, “respondent cannot disclaim responsibility for content associated with its domain name.” WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.5. Respondent is using the disputed domain name for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s SUNRISE and SUNRISE SENIOR LIVING marks in violation of Policy paragraph 4(b)(iv) and diverting traffic intending to reach Complainant’s websites at “www.sunriseseniorliving.com” and/or “www.sunriseseniorliving.com/careers” to Respondent’s website. See, e.g., Balenciaga v. PrivacyProtect.org / Level5 Corp., WIPO Case No. D2010-0038; Société des Produits Nestlé, WIPO Case No. D2009-0865.

The Panel therefore holds that the Disputed Domain Name was registered and used in bad faith and the third element of the Policy is met.

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 <sunriseseniorlivingcareers.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

Peter Wild
Sole Panelist
Date: August 3, 2020