Workday, Inc. v. Zhichao Yang / Zhi Chao Yang
Claim Number: FA2202001983039
Complainant is Workday, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Caitlin R. Byczko of Barnes & Thornburg LLP, Indiana, USA. Respondent is Zhichao Yang / Zhi Chao Yang (“Respondent”), China.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <myworkdayjobbs.com>, <myworkkdayjobs.com>, and <myworkdayjovs.com>, registered with Alibaba Cloud Computing Ltd. d/b/a HiChina (www.net.cn); Chengdu West Dimension Digital Technology Co., Ltd..
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.
Paul M. DeCicco, as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on February 3, 2022; the Forum received payment on February 3, 2022.
On February 4, 2022; February 7, 2022, Alibaba Cloud Computing Ltd. d/b/a HiChina (www.net.cn); Chengdu West Dimension Digital Technology Co., Ltd. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <myworkdayjobbs.com>, <myworkkdayjobs.com>, and <myworkdayjovs.com> domain name is registered with Alibaba Cloud Computing Ltd. d/b/a HiChina (www.net.cn); Chengdu West Dimension Digital Technology Co., Ltd. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Alibaba Cloud Computing Ltd. d/b/a HiChina (www.net.cn); Chengdu West Dimension Digital Technology Co., Ltd. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Alibaba Cloud Computing Ltd. d/b/a HiChina (www.net.cn); Chengdu West Dimension Digital Technology Co., Ltd. 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 February 10, 2022, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Chinese and English language Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 2, 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@myworkdayjobbs.com, postmaster@myworkkdayjobs.com, postmaster@myworkdayjovs.com. Also on February 10, 2022, the Chinese and English language 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 March 7, 2022, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Paul M. DeCicco 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 domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
Pursuant to UDRP Rule 11(a), the Panel finds that persuasive evidence has been adduced by Complainant to suggest the likely possibility that the Respondent is conversant and proficient in the English language. After considering the circumstance of the present case including Respondent’s failure to respond, the Panel finds that the proceeding should be in English.
A. Complainant
Complainant contends as follows:
Complainant is a leading provider of enterprise cloud applications for human resources and finance.
Complainant has rights in the WORKDAY through its registration of the mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) as well as via any of the Complainant’s multiple other national registrations.
Respondent’s <myworkdayjobbs.com>, <myworkkdayjobs.com>, and <myworkdayjovs.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s WORKDAY mark. Respondent incorporates Complainant’s mark in its entirety or a misspelling of the mark, and adds the generic terms “my” and “jobs” including the misspellings “jobbs” and “jovs” along with the “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”).
Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the <myworkdayjobbs.com>, <myworkkdayjobs.com>, and <myworkdayjovs.com> domain name as Respondent is not commonly known by the at-issue domain names nor did Complainant authorize Respondent to use the WORKDAY mark in any way. Respondent fails to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, Respondent’s domain names resolve to webpages that offer third-party services that are related to Complainant’s business.
Respondent registered and used the <myworkdayjobbs.com>, <myworkkdayjobs.com>, and <myworkdayjovs.com> domain names in bad faith as Respondent’s domain names resolve to a webpage that offers third-party services that are related to Complainant’s business. Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the WORKDAY mark due to the longstanding use and fame of the mark in commerce.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant has rights in the WORKDAY trademark.
Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant and had not been authorized to use Complainant’s trademark in any capacity.
Respondent registered the at‑issue domain names after Complainant acquired rights in the WORKDAY trademark.
Respondent uses the at-issue domain names to address a webpage that offers third-party services that are related to Complainant’s business.
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”).
The at-issue domain names are each confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights.
Complainant shows that it has rights in its WORKDAY trademark though its registration with the USPTO and otherwise. See BGK Trademark Holdings, LLC & Beyoncé Giselle Knowles-Carter v. Chanphut / Beyonce Shop, FA 1626334 (Forum Aug. 3, 2015) (asserting that Complainant’s registration with the USPTO (or any other governmental authority) adequately proves its rights under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)).
Respondent’s at-issue domain names each contain Complainant’s WORKDAY trademark or a misspelling of WORKDAY, prefixed by the term “my” and suffixed with either the term “jobs” or an overt misspelling thereof, with all followed by the top-level “.com.” The differences between Respondent’s domain names and Complainant’s trademark are insufficient to distinguish any of the domain names from Complainant’s WORKDAY mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Therefore, the Panel concludes that Respondent’s at-issue domain names are each confusingly similar to Complainant’s WORKDAY trademark. See Wiluna Holdings, LLC v. Edna Sherman, FA 1652781 (Forum Jan. 22, 2016) (finding the addition of a generic term and gTLD is insufficient in distinguishing a disputed domain name from a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)); see also, Twitch Interactive, Inc. v. zhang qin, FA 1626511 (Forum Aug. 4, 2015) (finding, “The relevant comparison then resolves to the trademark, TWITCH, with the term, ‘titch,’ which, as can be readily seen, merely removes the letter ‘w’ from the trademark. In spite of that omission the compared integers remain visually and aurally very similar and so Panel finds them to be confusingly similar for the purposes of the Policy.”); see also MTD Products Inc v. J Randall Shank, FA 1783050 (Forum June 27, 2018) (“The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark as it wholly incorporates the CUB CADET mark before appending the generic terms ‘genuine’ and ‘parts’ as well as the ‘.com’ gTLD.”).
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. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006).
Respondent lacks both rights and legitimate interests in respect of each at-issue domain name. Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant’s trademark in any capacity and, as discussed below, there are no Policy ¶ 4(c) circumstances from which the Panel might find that Respondent has rights or interests in respect of any at‑issue domain name. See Emerson Electric Co. v. golden humble / golden globals, FA 1787128 (Forum June 11, 2018) (“lack of evidence in the record to indicate a respondent is authorized to use [the] complainant’s mark may support a finding that [the] respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)”).
The WHOIS information for the at-issue domain names identifies the domain names’ registrant as “Zhichao Yang Zhi Chao Yang” and the record before the Panel contains no evidence tending to prove that Respondent is commonly known by any of the domain names or by Complainant’s trademark. The Panel therefore concludes that Respondent is not commonly known by the any of the at-issue domain name for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Braun Corp. v. Loney, FA 699652 (Forum July 7, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain names where the WHOIS information, as well as all other information in the record, gave no indication that the respondent was commonly known by the domain names, and the complainant had not authorized the respondent to register a domain name containing its registered mark).
Respondent uses the confusingly similar domain names to address a webpage displaying links to third party services related to Complainant’s business. Respondent’s use of the confusingly similar domain names in this manner indicates neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor a non-commercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Ashley Furniture Industries, Inc. v. domain admin / private registrations aktien gesellschaft, FA1506001626253 (Forum July 29, 2015) (“Respondent is using the disputed domain name to resolve to a web page containing advertising links to products that compete with those of Complainant. The Panel finds that this does not constitute a bona fide offering or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use.”).
Given the forgoing, Complainant satisfies its initial burden and conclusively demonstrates Respondent’s lack of rights and lack of interests in respect of each at-issue domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Respondent’s at-issue domain names domain names were each registered and used in bad faith. As discussed below without limitation, bad faith circumstances are present which compel the Panel to conclude that Respondent acted in bad faith pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy regarding each of the domain names.
As mentioned above regarding rights and legitimate interests, Respondent uses its confusingly similar domain names to display hyperlinks to services related to Complainant’s business. Doing so shows Respondent’s bad faith registration and use of the at-issue domain names under Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (b)(iv). See Transamerica Corporation v. Carolina Rodrigues / Fundacion Comercio Electronico, FA 1798316 (Forum Aug. 20, 2018) (“Respondent's use of the domain name to link to competitors of Complainant, presumably generating pay-per-click or referral fees for Respondent, is indicative of bad faith under paragraphs 4(b)(iii) and 4(b)(iv).”); see also, Staples, Inc. and Staples the Office Superstores, LLC v. HANNA EL HIN / DTAPLES.COM, FA1404001557007 (Forum June 6, 2014) (“Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the <dtaples.com> domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) because the Respondent is using the disputed domain name to host third-party links to Complainant’s competitors from which Respondent is presumed to obtain some commercial benefit.”).
Additionally, Respondent registered the at-issue domain names knowing that Complainant had trademark rights in WORKDAY. Respondent’s prior knowledge is shown by the notoriety of Complainant’s WORKDAY mark; by the display of links to services related to Complainant business on websites associated with the at-issue domain names; and by Respondent’s incorporation of Complainant’s trademark into each of the several confusingly similar at-issue domain names. Respondent’s prior knowledge of Complainant's trademark further indicates that Respondent registered and used the confusingly similar domain names in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Minicards Vennootschap Onder FIrma Amsterdam v. Moscow Studios, FA 1031703 (Forum Sept. 5, 2007) (holding that respondent registered a domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) after concluding that respondent had "actual knowledge of Complainant's mark when registering the disputed domain name").
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <myworkdayjobbs.com>, <myworkkdayjobs.com>, and <myworkdayjovs.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist
Dated: March 8, 2022
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page