Wolseley UK Limited v George Mark

WIPO Case No. D2025-1107

ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Wolseley UK Limited v. George Mark

Case No. D2025-1107

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Wolseley UK Limited, United Kingdom (“UK”), represented by Demys Limited, U.K.

The Respondent is George Mark, United States of America (“US”).

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <wolseleycareers.org> is registered with Squarespace Domains LLC (the

“Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 18, 2025. On the same day, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. Also on March 18, 2025, 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 March 19, 2025, 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 the same March 19, 2025.

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 March 20, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph
5, the due date for Response was April 9, 2025. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly,
the Center notified the Respondent’s default on April 10, 2025.

page 2

The Center appointed Rebecca Slater as the sole panelist in this matter on April 16, 2025. 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 is a company incorporated in the UK. It is one of the UK’s leading merchants in plumbing, heating, cooling and infrastructure. The Complainant came into existence in 1887 as a sheep shearing machine company. The Complainant’s business has evolved over the years, and it has focused solely on distribution since 1979. The Complainant operates 641 branches in the UK and Ireland, serves over 75,000 trade customers, and employs over 6,100 people.

The Complainant holds registrations for the WOLSELEY trade mark, including UK Trade Mark Registration
No. 2269154 for WOLSELEY word mark (registered October 19, 2021) and European Union Trade Mark
Registration No. 3656295 for WOLSELEY word mark (registered July 7, 2025) (the “Trade Mark”).

The Complainant also operates the <wolseley.co.uk> domain name, which it uses for its online store for trade customers and for corporate email services.

The Respondent is an individual named George Mark apparently located in the US. The Respondent did not submit a formal response, and consequently little information is known about the Respondent.

The Respondent registered the disputed domain name on March 4, 2025.

The disputed domain name is currently inactive (and states “Domain Not Claimed” followed by explanatory text).

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.

Notably, the Complainant contends that:

• The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Trade Mark. It consists of the entirety of

Trade Mark followed by the dictionary term (“careers”). The confusion is enhanced by the fact that the

Complainant operates its own careers website from the <wolseleycareers.co.uk> domain name.

• The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. It is

not commonly known by the Trade Mark. The Respondent has not received any license or permission from the Complainant to use the Trade Mark. The Respondent has used the disputed domain name send at least two phishing emails which impersonated one of the Complainant’s employees.

• The disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith by the Respondent. The

disputed domain name incorporates the well-known Trade Mark, so initial interest confusion is inevitable.
The Respondent has used the disputed domain name to send phishing emails.

B. Respondent

The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.

page 3

6. Discussion and Findings

To succeed, the Complainant must demonstrate that all the elements enumerated in paragraph 4(a) of the
Policy have been satisfied, namely:

• the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;

• the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and

• the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

The onus of providing these elements is on the Complainant.

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 Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition, (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.7.

The Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trademark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy.
WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1.

The entirety of the Trade Mark is reproduced within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Trade Mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7.

Although the addition of other terms (here, “careers”) may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds the addition of this term does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the Trade Mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, 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 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 3.0, 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 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 name such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise.

page 4

The Complainant has not authorized the Respondent to use the Trade Mark and there is no evidence that the Respondent has ever been known by the disputed domain name.

The evidence provided by the Complainant (i.e., emails impersonating one of the Complainant’s employees) indicates that the disputed domain name has been used to perpetrate a fraudulent scheme. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity (here, claimed as impersonation/passing off and phishing) can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.13.1.

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.

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. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.2.1.

Having reviewed the record, the Panel finds the Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain names constitutes bad faith under the Policy.

Under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy, there is evidence of registration and use of the disputed domain name in bad faith where a Respondent has used the disputed domain name to intentionally attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trade marks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the website.

The Panel finds it unlikely that the disputed domain name was registered without knowledge of the Complainant and the Trade Mark, given the significant reputation of the Complainant. The Respondent’s goal in registering and using the disputed domain name appears to be to attract Internet users for potential gain. This finding is reinforced by the Respondent’s use of disputed domain name to send fraudulent emails.

Additionally, Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity (here, claimed as impersonation/passing off and phishing) constitutes bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.0, 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 name <wolseleycareers.org> be transferred to the Complainant.

/Rebecca Slater/
Rebecca Slater
Sole Panelist
Date: April 28, 2025