DECISION

 

Ceridian Dayforce Corporation v. James Day

Claim Number: FA2310002064663

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Ceridian Dayforce Corporation ("Complainant"), represented by Hannah Lutz of Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP, Minnesota, USA. Respondent is James Day ("Respondent"), North Carolina, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <dayforce1.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.

 

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.

 

David E. Sorkin as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on October 3, 2023; Forum received payment on October 3, 2023.

 

On October 3, 2023, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by email to Forum that the <dayforce1.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 October 4, 2023, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of October 24, 2023 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via email to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@dayforce1.com. Also on October 4, 2023, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the email 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 October 25, 2023, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed David E. Sorkin 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.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant is part of a global business services company that provides human resource solutions and payroll services to a variety of industries in more than 50 countries including the United States and Canada. Complainant or a predecessor in interest has used the DAYFORCE trademark in connection with human resources software and related products and services since at least as early as 2009. Complainant owns trademark registrations for DAYFORCE in standard character form in the United States and other jurisdictions. Complainant also owns and uses the <dayforce.com> domain name. 

 

The disputed domain name <dayforce1.com> was registered in March 2020. The name is registered in the name of a privacy registration service on behalf of Respondent. The domain name resolves to a parking page composed of pay-per-click links, including a link related to retirement accounts. Complainant states that Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name, is not affiliated with Complainant, and is not authorized to use Complainant's mark.

 

Complainant contends on the above grounds that the disputed domain name <dayforce1.com> is confusingly similar to its DAYFORCE mark; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

 

DISCUSSION

Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and 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 Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, § 4.3 (3d ed. 2017), available at http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (dismissing complaint where complainant failed to "produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations").

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

The disputed domain name <dayforce1.com> incorporates Complainant's registered DAYFORCE trademark, adding the numeral "1" and the ".com" top-level domain. These additions do not substantially diminish the similarity between the domain name and Complainant's mark. See, e.g., AGFA-Gevaert N.V. v. Gao Xi An, D2023-2302 (WIPO July 27, 2023) (finding <agfa1.com> confusingly similar to AGFA); Chemours Co., FC LLC v. Privacy service provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf / Carl Suttle, D2022-2505 (WIPO Aug. 20, 2022) (finding <teflon1.com> confusingly similar to TEFLON); Ceridian HCM, Inc. & Ceridian Dayforce Corp. v. Zhichao Yang / Zhichao / Anonymize, Inc. / Mengdan Qian / Wurongrong, FA 1925691 (Forum Feb. 26, 2021) (finding <dayforcee.com>, <dayforceh.com>, <dayforces.com>, and other domain names confusingly similar to DAYFORCE). The Panel considers the disputed domain name to be confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Under the Policy, the Complainant must first make a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and then the burden shifts to the Respondent to come forward with concrete evidence of such rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Productions, Inc. v. Entertainment Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006).

 

The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant's registered mark without authorization, and Respondent does not appear to have made any active use of the name; it resolves to a registrar-generated parking page composed of pay-per-click links. Such use does not give rise to rights or legitimate interests under the Policy. See, e.g., AGFA-Gevaert N.V. v. Gao Xi An, supra (finding lack of rights or interests in similar circumstances); Chemours Co., FC LLC v. Privacy service provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf / Carl Suttle, supra (same); Ceridian HCM, Inc. & Ceridian Dayforce Corp. v. Zhichao Yang / Zhichao / Anonymize, Inc. / Mengdan Qian / Wurongrong, supra (same).

 

Complainant has made a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain name, and Respondent has failed to come forward with any evidence of such rights or interests. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has sustained its burden of proving that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Finally, Complainant must show that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Under paragraph 4(b)(i) of the Policy, bad faith may be shown by evidence that a domain name was acquired "primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of [Respondent's] documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name." Under paragraph 4(b)(iii), bad faith may be shown by evidence that Respondent registered the disputed domain name "primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor." Under paragraph 4(b)(iv), bad faith may be shown by evidence that "by using the domain name, [Respondent] intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [Respondent's] web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of [Respondent's] web site or location or of a product or service on [Respondent's] web site or location."

 

Respondent registered a domain name incorporating Complainant's registered mark. The registration is in the name of a privacy registration service, and the domain name resolves to a registrar-generated parking page composed of pay-per-click links (and, as far as the Panel can tell, has done so since it was registered more than three years ago). Respondent does not appear to have made any active use of the domain name and has not come forward with any explanation for the selection of the name or its intended use. Under the circumstances, the Panel considers it reasonable to infer that Respondent registered the domain name intending to use it in a manner calculated to create and exploit confusion with Complainant's mark, most likely either by selling the domain name or by using it to attract Internet users seeking Complainant, and that Respondent is maintaining the domain name for that purpose. See, e.g., AGFA-Gevaert N.V. v. Gao Xi An, supra (finding bad faith registration and use in similar circumstances); Chemours Co., FC LLC v. Privacy service provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf / Carl Suttle, supra (same); Morgan Stanley v. Shitou, FA 1907912 (Forum Sept. 7, 2020) (same); Airbnb, Inc. v. Data Protected Ltd., FA 1854961 (Forum Aug. 30, 2019) (same). The Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

 

DECISION

Having considered the three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <dayforce1.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

David E. Sorkin, Panelist

Dated: October 25, 2023