Ceridian HCM, Inc. and Ceridian Dayforce Corporation v. Zhichao Yang / Zhichao / Anonymize, Inc. / mengdan qian / wurongrong
Claim Number: FA2012001925691
Complainant is Ceridian HCM, Inc. and Ceridian Dayforce Corporation (“Complainant”), represented by Ashley M. Bennett Ewald of LATHROP GPM, LLP, Minnesota, USA. Respondent is Zhichao Yang / Zhichao / Anonymize, Inc. / mengdan qian / wurongrong (“Respondent”), USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <dayforcehcd.com>, <dayforceh.com>, <daysforce.com>, <dayfforce.com>, <dayforcw.com>, <fdayforcehcm.com>, <dayforcehcf.com>, <dayforcce.com>, <dayforcehcg.com>, <dayforcehcs.com>, <dayforcehcw.com>, <dayforcehacm.com>, <dayforcedhcm.com>, <comdayforce.com>, <dayforcehecm.com>, <dayforces.com>, <dayforcehnm.com>, <dayforcehgm.com>, <dayforcdehcm.com>, <dayforcehcr.com>, <dayforcehqm.com>, <dayforcehpm.com>, <dayyforcehcm.com>, <comceridian.com>, <wdayforcehcm.com>, <hdayforcehcm.com>, <dayrforcehcm.com>, <dayforch.com>, <dayforcehfm.com>, <daysforcehcm.com>, <ceridians.com>, <dayforcr.com>, <ddayforce.com>, <dayyforce.com>, and <dayforcee.com> (the “disputed domain names”), registered with GoDaddy Online Services Cayman Islands Ltd.; Dynadot, LLC; NameSilo, LLC; Epik Inc.; GoDaddy.com, LLC; Name.com, Inc.; and DNSPod, Inc.
The undersigned certifies that she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Lynda M. Braun as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on December 18, 2020; the Forum received payment on December 18, 2020.
On December 21, 2020; December 22, 2020; January 5, 2021; and January 11, 2021, GoDaddy Online Services Cayman Islands Ltd.; Dynadot, LLC; NameSilo, LLC; Epik Inc.; GoDaddy.com, LLC; Name.com, Inc.; and DNSPod, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <dayforcehcd.com>, <dayforceh.com>, <daysforce.com>, <dayfforce.com>, <dayforcw.com>, <fdayforcehcm.com>, <dayforcehcf.com>, <dayforcce.com>, <dayforcehcg.com>, <dayforcehcs.com>, <dayforcehcw.com>, <dayforcehacm.com>, <dayforcedhcm.com>, <comdayforce.com>, <dayforcehecm.com>, <dayforces.com>, <dayforcehnm.com>, <dayforcehgm.com>, <dayforcdehcm.com>, <dayforcehcr.com>, <dayforcehqm.com>, <dayforcehpm.com>, <dayyforcehcm.com>, <comceridian.com>, <wdayforcehcm.com>, <hdayforcehcm.com>, <dayrforcehcm.com>, <dayforch.com>, <dayforcehfm.com>, <daysforcehcm.com>, <ceridians.com>, <dayforcr.com>, <ddayforce.com>, <dayyforce.com>, and <dayforcee.com> disputed domain names are registered with GoDaddy Online Services Cayman Islands Ltd.; Dynadot, LLC; NameSilo, LLC; Epik Inc.; GoDaddy.com, LLC; Name.com, Inc.; DNSPod, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the disputed domain names. GoDaddy Online Services Cayman Islands Ltd.; Dynadot, LLC; NameSilo, LLC; Epik Inc.; GoDaddy.com, LLC; Name.com, Inc.; and DNSPod, Inc. have verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy Online Services Cayman Islands Ltd.; Dynadot, LLC; NameSilo, LLC; Epik Inc.; GoDaddy.com, LLC; Name.com, Inc.; DNSPod, Inc. registration agreements and have thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).
On January 18, 2021, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 8, 2021 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@dayforcehcd.com, postmaster@dayforceh.com, postmaster@daysforce.com, postmaster@dayfforce.com, postmaster@dayforcw.com, postmaster@fdayforcehcm.com, postmaster@dayforcehcf.com, postmaster@dayforcce.com, postmaster@dayforcehcg.com, postmaster@dayforcehcs.com, postmaster@dayforcehcw.com, postmaster@dayforcehacm.com, postmaster@dayforcedhcm.com, postmaster@comdayforce.com, postmaster@dayforcehecm.com, postmaster@dayforces.com, postmaster@dayforcehnm.com, postmaster@dayforcehgm.com, postmaster@dayforcdehcm.com, postmaster@dayforcehcr.com, postmaster@dayforcehqm.com, postmaster@dayforcehpm.com, postmaster@dayyforcehcm.com, postmaster@comceridian.com, postmaster@wdayforcehcm.com, postmaster@hdayforcehcm.com, postmaster@dayrforcehcm.com, postmaster@dayforch.com, postmaster@dayforcehfm.com, postmaster@daysforcehcm.com, postmaster@ceridians.com, postmaster@dayforcr.com, postmaster@ddayforce.com, postmaster@dayyforce.com, and postmaster@dayforcee.com. Also on January 18, 2021, 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, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On February 15, 2021, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Lynda M. Braun as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the 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, the Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent.
Complainant requests that the disputed domain names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
PRELIMINARY ISSUE: REQUIRED LANGUAGE OF COMPLAINT
Although a communication was received from the Registrar that the language of the Registration Agreement was in Chinese, the Panel finds that this information was received from the Registrar only after the case was commenced. Therefore, the Panel has decided that the case may proceed with the English-language submission of the Complaint as set forth below.
The Panel has the discretion under UDRP Rule 11(a) to determine the appropriate language of the proceedings taking into consideration the particular circumstances of the administrative proceeding. Here, the Panel accepts the Complainant’s argument that the disputed domain names contain a typosquatting pattern of replacing one letter in the Latin character version of Complainant’s mark, and that the resolving websites are written entirely in English. See FilmNet Inc. v. Onetz, FA 96196 (Forum Feb. 12, 2001) (finding it appropriate to conduct the proceeding in English under Rule 11, despite Korean being designated as the required language in the registration agreement because the respondent submitted a response in English after receiving the complaint in Korean and English). In addition, the Panel finds that because the because the Respondent is seemingly proficient in English, the proceeding should be conducted in English.
PRELIMINARY ISSUE: MULTIPLE COMPLAINANTS
In the instant proceedings, there are two Complainants. Paragraph 3(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”) provides that “[a]ny person or entity may initiate an administrative proceeding by submitting a complaint.” The Forum’s Supplemental Rule 1(e) defines “The Party Initiating a Complaint Concerning a Domain Name Registration” as a “single person or entity claiming to have rights in the domain name, or multiple persons or entities who have a sufficient nexus who can each claim to have rights to all domain names listed in the Complaint.”
The Panel finds that the evidence in the Complaint is sufficient to establish a sufficient nexus or link between the Complainants. One Complainant, Ceridian Dayforce Corporation is an indirect subsidiary of the other Complainant, Ceridian HCM Inc. and each Complainant registered and used one of the two trademarks involved in this proceeding. See Vancouver Org. Comm. for the 2010 Olympic and Paralymic Games & Int’l Olympic Comm. v. Malik, FA 666119 (Forum May 12, 2006) (“It has been accepted that it is permissible for two complainants to submit a single complaint if they can demonstrate a link between the two entities such as a relationship involving a license, a partnership or an affiliation that would establish the reason for the parties bringing the complaint as one entity.”). Therefore, the Panel will treat the two Complainants as a single entity for purposes of this proceeding.
PRELIMINARY ISSUE: MULTIPLE RESPONDENTS
In the instant proceedings, the Panel finds that the entities that control the disputed domain names are effectively controlled by the same person and/or entity, which is operating under several aliases. Paragraph 3(c) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”) provides that a “complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that the domain names are registered by the same domain name holder.”
Specifically, the Panel finds in support of the disputed domain names being operating under aliases of the same person that (i) there is a common typosquatting pattern found in each of the disputed domain names; (ii) all of the disputed domain names resolve to an identically-formatted and designed parking page; and (iii all of the disputed domain names were registered within a span of two weeks, with many of them being registered on the same day. Therefore, the Panel will treat the entities that own the disputed domain names as a single person or entity for purposes of this proceeding.
A. Complainant
Complainant, Ceridian HCM Inc. and Ceridian Dayforce Corporation, is a global human capital management software company. Complainant has rights in the CERIDIAN and DAYFORCE trademarks based upon registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 1,868,786, registered Dec. 20, 1994; Reg. No. 4,261,665, registered Dec. 18, 2012) (hereinafter referred to as the “CERIDIAN and DAYFORCE Marks”).
Respondent’s disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the CERIDIAN and DAYFORCE Marks because they each contain the entirety of one of the trademarks or a misspelling of one of the trademarks with the mere addition of random letters, followed by the “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”).
In addition, Complainant contends that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Names, and Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain names in bad faith.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
The Panel finds that Complainant holds trademark rights in the CERIDIAN and DAYFORCE Marks, that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s CERIDIAN and DAYFORCE Marks, that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names, and that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain names in bad faith.
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 disputed domain names should be cancelled or transferred:
(1) the disputed domain names 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 disputed domain names; and
(3) the disputed domain names have been registered and are 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”).
The Panel finds that Complainant has enforceable rights in the CERIDIAN and DAYFORCE Marks based upon registration with the USPTO. (e.g., Reg. No. 1,868,786, registered Dec. 20, 1994; Reg. No. 4,261,665, registered Dec. 18, 2012). Registration of a trademark with the USPTO is a valid showing of rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See DIRECTV, LLC v. The Pearline Group, FA 1818749 (Forum Dec. 30, 2018) (“Complainant’s ownership of a USPTO registration for DIRECTV demonstrate its rights in such mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”).
Accordingly, the Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been established by Complainant.
Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. Under the Policy, Complainants are required to make out a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. Once such a prima facie case is made, Respondent carries the burden of demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. See Neal & Massey Holdings Limited v. Gregory Ricks, FA 1549327 (Forum Apr. 12, 2014) (“Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must first make out a prima facie case showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of an at-issue domain name and then the burden, in effect, shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests”). In this case, Respondent did not carry its burden to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names as it did not respond to the Complaint, but given the facts of this case, the Panel finds that Respondent would have been hard-pressed to furnish availing arguments had it chosen to respond:
Specifically, Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names, Complainants have not authorized, licensed, or otherwise permitted Respondent to use the CERIDIAN and DAYFORCE Marks and Respondent has no relationship, affiliation, connection, endorsement or association with Complainant.
Furthermore, Respondent fails to use the disputed domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, or in connection with a legitimate noncommercial or fair use because the disputed domain names resolve to a website containing pay-per-click sponsored links that compete with Complainant’s business.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been established by Complainants.
The Panel concludes that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain names in bad faith.
First, Respondent attracts users for commercial gain by displaying third-party pay-per-click sponsored links. Use of confusingly similar domain names to display third party hyperlinks and possibly collect click-through fees is evidence of bad faith under Policy ¶4(b)(iv). See T-Mobile USA, Inc. v. utahhealth, FA 697821 (Forum June 7, 2006) (holding that the registration and use of a domain name confusingly similar to a complainant’s mark to direct Internet traffic to a commercial “links page” in order to profit from click-through fees or other revenue sources constitutes bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)).
Second, the use of disputed domain names to intentionally attempt to attract Internet users to a respondent’s website or online location by creating a likelihood of confusion or a false association with a complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the registrant’s website or online location demonstrates registration and use in bad faith. See AOL LLC v. iTech Ent, LLC, FA 726227 (Forum July 21, 2006). Therefore, the Panel concludes that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain names in bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).
Third, Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain names in bad faith given that Respondent has engaged in typosquatting when it registered the disputed domain names. Respondent registered the disputed domain names by misspelling the CERIDIAN and DAYFORCE Marks, which it did by adding random letters to each of the disputed domain names. Typosquatting of a registered trademark, as here, indicates bad faith registration and use per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Vanguard Trademark Holdings USA LLC v. Shuai Wei Xu / Xu Shuai Wei, FA 1784238 (Forum June 1, 2018) (finding the respondent engaged in typosquatting—and thus registered and used the at-issue domain names in bad faith—where the names consisted of the complainant’s mark with small typographical errors introduced therein).
Moreover, the Panel concludes that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain names in bad faith based upon Respondent’s pattern of bad faith behavior. Registration of multiple domain names incorporating a complainant’s mark may evidence bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii). See United States Postal Service v. Yongkun Wang, FA 1788170 (Forum July 11, 2018) (“Complainant contends that Respondent is a serial cybersquatter as evidenced by its registering four separate domain names all incorporating Complainant’s USPS mark. Therefore, the Panel finds that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain names in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii).”). Here, the Panel finds that Respondent’s registration of 35 domain names containing the CERIDIAN and DAYFORCE Marks demonstrates a pattern of bad faith registration. Therefore, the Panel, concludes that Respondent acted in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii).
Finally, the Panel concludes that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain names in bad faith because Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the CERIDIAN and DAYFORCE Marks based on Complainant’s widespread use of the trademark as well as Respondent’s use of the disputed domain names to host pay-per-click links on the landing page to which the disputed domain names resolve. Prior knowledge of a complainant’s trademark and use of a disputed domain name that incorporates the trademark is sufficient to find bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Orbitz Worldwide, LLC v. Domain Librarian, FA 1535826 (Forum Feb. 6, 2014) (finding actual knowledge due to the domain name chosen and the use made of it); Yahoo! Inc. v. Butler, FA 744444 (Forum Aug. 17, 2006) (finding bad faith where the respondent was “well-aware” of the complainant’s YAHOO! mark at the time of registration).
Accordingly, the Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) has been established by 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 <dayforcehcd.com>, <dayforceh.com>, <daysforce.com>, <dayfforce.com>, <dayforcw.com>, <fdayforcehcm.com>, <dayforcehcf.com>, <dayforcce.com>, <dayforcehcg.com>, <dayforcehcs.com>, <dayforcehcw.com>, <dayforcehacm.com>, <dayforcedhcm.com>, <comdayforce.com>, <dayforcehecm.com>, <dayforces.com>, <dayforcehnm.com>, <dayforcehgm.com>, <dayforcdehcm.com>, <dayforcehcr.com>, <dayforcehqm.com>, <dayforcehpm.com>, <dayyforcehcm.com>, <comceridian.com>, <wdayforcehcm.com>, <hdayforcehcm.com>, <dayrforcehcm.com>, <dayforch.com>, <dayforcehfm.com>, <daysforcehcm.com>, <ceridians.com>, <dayforcr.com>, <ddayforce.com>, <dayyforce.com>, and <dayforcee.com> disputed domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Lynda M. Braun, Panelist
Dated: February 26, 2021
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page