Workday, Inc. v. Online Resource / Online Resource Management Ltd.
Claim Number: FA1604001670287
Complainant is Workday, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Caitlin R. Byczko of Barnes & Thornburg LLP, Indiana, USA. Respondent is Online Resource / Online Resource Management Ltd. (“Respondent”), Cayman Islands.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <workdday.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.
The undersigned certifies that he or she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his or her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Sandra J. Franklin as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on April 13, 2016; the Forum received payment on April 14, 2016.
On April 13, 2016, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <workdday.com> domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GoDaddy.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.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 April 18, 2016, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of May 9, 2016 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@workdday.com. Also on April 18, 2016, 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 May 12, 2016, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Sandra J. Franklin 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.
A. Complainant
1. Respondent’s <workdday.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s WORKDAY mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <workdday.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and uses the <workdday.com> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant holds a regsitration for the WORKDAY mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 3,280,638, registered August 14, 2007).
Respondent registered the <workdday.com> domain name on January 11, 2016, and uses it to redirect Internet users to survey websites and malware warnings.
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 and inferences set forth in the Complaint as true unless the evidence is clearly contradictory. See Vertical Solutions Mgmt., Inc. v. webnet-marketing, inc., FA 95095 (Forum July 31, 2000) (holding that the respondent’s failure to respond allows all reasonable inferences of fact in the allegations of the complaint to be deemed true); see also Talk City, Inc. v. Robertson, D2000-0009 (WIPO Feb. 29, 2000) (“In the absence of a response, it is appropriate to accept as true all allegations of the Complaint.”).
Complainant has rights in the WORKDAY mark for purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through its registration with the USPTO, despite the geographic disparity of the parties. See W.W. Grainger, Inc. v. Above.com Domain Privacy, FA 1334458 (Forum Aug. 24, 2010) (stating that “the Panel finds that USPTO registration is sufficient to establish these [Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)] rights even when Respondent lives or operates in a different country.”).
Respondent’s <workdday.com> domain name is simply a typosquatted version of Complainant’s WORKDAY mark, with an additional letter “d.” The domain also contains the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com.” These changes do not distinguish the disputed domain name from Complainant’s mark. See OpenTable, Inc. v. Above.com Domain Privacy, FA 1626187 (Forum Aug. 10, 2015 (“Respondent’s <oipentable.com> domain name is confusingly similar to the OPENTABLE mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) because the disputed domain merely adds the letter ‘i’ . . . ”); see also Reese v. Morgan, FA 917029 (Forum Apr. 5, 2007) (finding that the mere addition of the generic top-level domain “.com” is insufficient to differentiate a disputed domain name from a mark). Thus, the Panel finds that Respondent’s <workdday.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s WORKDAY mark.
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Once Complainant makes a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006) (holding that the complainant must first make a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under UDRP ¶ 4(a)(ii) before the burden shifts to the respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in a domain name); see also AOL LLC v. Gerberg, FA 780200 (Forum Sept. 25, 2006) (“Complainant must first make a prima facie showing that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interest in the subject domain names, which burden is light. If Complainant satisfies its burden, then the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain names.”).
Complainant contends that Respondent is not commonly known by the <workdday.com> domain name and it is not authorized to use the WORKDAY mark. The WHOIS information lists “Online Resource” as the registrant of the disputed domain name. Consequently, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the <workdday.com> domain name. See Alaska Air Group, Inc. and its subsidiary, Alaska Airlines v. Song Bin, FA1408001574905 (Forum September 17, 2014) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name as demonstrated by the WHOIS information and based on the fact that the complainant had not licensed or authorized the respondent to use its ALASKA AIRLINES mark).
Complainant claims that Respondent fails to use <workdday.com> domain name to provide a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use because the resolving website redirects Internet users survey websites and malware warnings. Complainant’s evidence demonstrates that Respondent fails to use <workdday.com> domain name to provide a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Homer TLC, Inc. v. Wang, FA 1336037 (Forum Aug. 23, 2010) (holding that, where a disputed domain name purports to offer Internet users a gift card as compensation for filling out surveys, the respondent’s use of the disputed domain name amounts to neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)); see also Ceridian Corp. v. Versata Software, Inc., FA 1259927 (Forum June 23, 2009) (finding that a respondent’s use of a disputed domain name to direct Internet users to a website which attempts to download computer viruses “failed to create any semblance of a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)”).
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Complainant alleges that Respondent uses the <workdday.com> domain name in bad faith because the resolving website redirects Internet users to various webpages that includes malware warnings and illegitimate surveys that may promote phishing. Complainant has provided screenshots to demonstrate this use. The Panel finds that Respondent’s use of the <workdday.com> domain name constitutes bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Google, Inc. v. Petrovich, FA 1339345 (Forum September 23, 2010) (finding that disputed domain names which distribute malware to Internet users’ computers demonstrate Respondent’s bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)); see also Weight Watchers International, Inc. v. Private Registration / WhoisGuardService.com, FA1412001596215 (Forum January 15, 2015) (“This Panel similarly finds that Respondent has acted in Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) bad faith here based on use of the domain name for surveys.”); see also Hess Corp. v. GR, FA 770909 (Forum Sept. 19, 2006) (determining that the respondent demonstrated bad faith registration and use because it was attempting to acquire the personal and financial information of Internet users through a confusingly similar domain name).
The Panel finds that Respondent’s <workdday.com> domain name is a typosquatted version of Complainant’s mark, further evidence of Respondent’s bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Under Armour, Inc. v. JEFF RANDALL, FA1410001585022 (Forum November 18, 2014) (finding that the respondent’s <unerarmour.com> domain name constitutes typosquatting of the complainant’s UNDER ARMOUR mark, which is evidence of bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)).
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <workdday.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Sandra J. Franklin, Panelist
Dated: May 16, 2016
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page