Ceridian HCM, Inc. v. Verlynn Lord
Claim Number: FA2305002043269
Complainant is Ceridian HCM, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Hannah Lutz of Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP, Minnesota, USA. Respondent is Verlynn Lord (“Respondent”), Illinois, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <ceridiian.com>, registered with NameCheap, Inc.
PANEL
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.
Alan L. Limbury, as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on May 4, 2023. Forum received payment on May 4, 2023.
On May 5, 2023, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <ceridiian.com> domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. NameCheap, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameCheap, Inc. 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 May 8, 2023, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of May 30, 2023 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@ceridiian.com. Also on May 8, 2023, 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, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On June 1, 2023, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Alan L. Limbury as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that 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, 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
Complainant, Ceridian HCM, Inc., is a global human capital management software company, providing computer software and other services that help its customers manage employee-related projects in the areas of human resources, payroll, benefits, workforce management, and talent management. Complainant has rights in the CERIDIAN mark through numerous trademark registrations, including with the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Complainant operates the website at “www.ceridian.com”. Respondent’s <ceridiian.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s CERIDIAN mark.
Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the <ceridiian.com> domain name since Respondent is not licensed or authorized to use Complainant’s CERIDIAN mark and is not commonly known by the domain name. Respondent does not use the domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Rather, Respondent is fraudulently impersonating an employee of Complainant in order to effectuate a phishing scheme. Further, Respondent uses the domain name to direct users to competing third-parties.
Respondent registered the typosquatted <ceridiian.com> domain name in bad faith with constructive and/or actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the CERIDIAN mark and uses it in bad faith by conducting a fraudulent phishing scheme through emails and directing users to competing third-parties.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant has established all the elements entitling it to relief.
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”).
Complainant has shown that it has rights in the CERIDIAN mark through numerous trademark registrations, including with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 1,868,786, registered on December 20, 1994). The Panel finds Respondent’s <ceridiian.com> domain name to be confusingly similar to the CERIDIAN mark as it merely adds a letter “i” to the mark. The inconsequential gTLD “.com” may be disregarded.
Complainant has established this element.
Rights or Legitimate Interests
(i) before any notice to Respondent of the dispute, the use by Respondent of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or
(ii) Respondent (as an individual, business or other organization) has been commonly known by the domain name, even if Respondent has acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or
(iii) Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert customers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.
The <ceridiian.com> domain name was registered on April 17, 2023, many years after Complainant registered its CERIDIAN mark. That day, an email containing Complainant’s name and address was sent from <accountsreceivable@ceridiian.com> in the name of an employee of Complainant, seeking to divert payments from a customer of Complainant. Currently, the domain name resolves to a parking page featuring links to and
advertisements for services which compete with those offered by Complainant.
These circumstances, together with Complainant’s assertions, are sufficient to constitute a prima facie showing of absence of rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name on the part of Respondent. The evidentiary burden therefore shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the <ceridiian.com> domain name. See JUUL Labs, Inc. v. Dryx Emerson / KMF Events LTD, FA1906001849706 (Forum July 17, 2019). Respondent has made no attempt to do so.
The Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name.
Complainant has established this element.
The four illustrative circumstances set out in paragraph 4(b) of the Policy as evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) are not exclusive.
The circumstances set out above in relation to the second element satisfy the Panel that Respondent was fully aware of Complainant’s CERIDIAN mark when Respondent registered the typosquatted <ceridiian.com> domain name and that Respondent registered and is using the domain name in bad faith for the purpose of phishing for commercial gain by masquerading as a representative of Complainant.
Complainant has established this element.
DECISION
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 <ceridiian.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Alan L. Limbury, Panelist
Dated: June 2, 2023
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page