DECISION

 

Workday, Inc. v. Germany Peremobowei

Claim Number: FA2510002183571

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Workday, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Caitlin R. Byczko of Barnes & Thornburg LLP, Indiana, USA. Respondent is Germany Peremobowei ("Respondent"), Nigeria.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <workdayofficials.online>, 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.

 

Debrett G. Lyons as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on October 17, 2025; Forum received payment on October 17, 2025.

 

On October 17, 2025, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <workdayofficials.online> 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 October 21, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of November 10, 2025 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@workdayofficials.online. Also on October 21, 2025, 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 formal response from Respondent, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.

 

On November 11, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Debrett G. Lyons 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 a formal response from Respondent.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

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

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant asserts trademark rights in WORKDAY.  Complainant holds a national registration for that trademark.  Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark.  

 

Complainant alleges that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

 

Complainant alleges that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a formal Response in this proceeding but on October 21, 2025, wrote to Forum stating:

 

"I would like to clarify that workdayofficials.online is not related in any way to Workday, Inc. The domain name is used solely for organizational and business purposes under our own brand identity, Workday Officials, which is an independent organization. The choice of the name "workdayofficials" is descriptive of our internal operations and community focus—it does not seek to impersonate or mislead anyone regarding Workday, Inc.

 

There is no connection, affiliation, or commercial intent to exploit the Workday brand. Our organization's domain and business communications are legitimate and unrelated to Workday, Inc.'s products or services.

 

Please acknowledge receipt of this response and confirm that it will be included in the case record. I am preparing a formal response submission through the Forum's online system before the stated deadline."

 

No further submission has been received from Respondent.

 

FINDINGS

The factual findings pertinent to the decision in this case are that:

1.       Complainant provides cloud applications for human resources and finance under the trademark, WORKDAY;

2.       Complainant is the owner of, inter alia, United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") Reg. No. 5,131,360, registered January 31, 2017, for WORKDAY; and

3.       the disputed domain name was registered by Respondent on September 18, 2025, using a privacy service to shield its identity; and

4.       the domain name has been used to create email accounts which have been used to offer job opportunities in exchange for payment.

 

DISCUSSION

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.  

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires a two-fold enquiry—a threshold investigation into whether a complainant has rights in a trademark, followed by an assessment of whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to that trademark.

 

It is well established by decisions under this Policy that a trademark registered with a national authority is evidence of trademark rights (see, for example, Mothers Against Drunk Driving v. phix, FA 174052 (Forum Sept. 25, 2003)).  Complainant therefore has rights since it provides proof of registration of the trademark WORKDAY with the USPTO, a national trademark authority.

 

For the purposes of comparison of the disputed domain name with the trademark, the gTLD, ".online" can be disregarded (see, for example, Am. Int'l Group, Inc. v. Domain Admin. Ltd., FA 1106369 (Forum Dec. 31, 2007)). Thereafter the disputed domain name merely adds the non-distinctive word, "officials", to the trademark. The Panel finds that the domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark (see, for example, Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) finding that "[w]here a relevant trademark is recognizable within a disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element").

 

The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy states that any of the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be proved based on its evaluation of all evidence presented, shall demonstrate rights or legitimate interests to a domain name for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy:

 

(i)                      before any notice to you of the dispute, your use 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)                      you (as an individual, business, or other organization) have been commonly known by the domain name, even if you have acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or

 

(iii)                      you are making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.

 

Complainant need only make out a prima facie case that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, after which the onus shifts to Respondent to rebut that case by demonstrating those rights or interests (see, for example, Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, D2000‑0624 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000)).

 

The name of the domain name owner does not carry any suggestion that Respondent might be commonly known by the domain name. There is no evidence that Respondent has any trademark rights of its own.  Complainant states that it has not authorised Respondent to use the trademark. Complainant provides evidence that Respondent has linked the domain name to email accounts and submits that those accounts are intended to impersonate Complainant for a fraudulent purpose, namely, to offer non-existent job opportunities to others in exchange for payment.

 

The Panel finds that a prima facie case has been made (see, for example, Regions Bank v. Nwagwu Uchenna Solomon, FA 2058705 (Forum Sept. 21, 2023), finding that use of a domain name that incorporated the complainant's registered mark to impersonate the complainant in connection with a fraudulent phishing scheme does not give rise to rights or legitimate interests under the Policy).

 

The onus shifts to Respondent. As stated, there has been no formal Response. The October 21, 2025, message sent to Forum promised a Response, but nothing was forthcoming and the assertions in that message are wholly unsupported. Moreover, the use to which the domain name has been put contradicts the assertions of good faith intentions. The Panel gives the informal submission no weight.  Respondent has not discharged the onus and the Panel finds the Respondent has no rights or interests.

 

Complainant has satisfied the second limb of the Policy.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Complainant must prove on the balance of probabilities both that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith and used in bad faith.  

 

Further guidance on that requirement is found in paragraph 4(b) of the Policy, which sets out four circumstances, any one of which is taken to be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith if established. 

 

The four specified circumstances are:

 

(i)                      circumstances indicating that the respondent has registered or acquired the domain name 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 the respondent's documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or

 

(ii)                      the respondent has registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that Respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or

 

(iii)                      the respondent has registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or

 

(iv)                      by using the domain name, respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, internet users to respondent's website 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 the respondent's website or location or of a product or service on the site or location.'

 

The Panel finds that Respondent's conduct falls under paragraph 4(b)(iv). The Panel has found that the domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark. The use of the domain name is clearly for commercial gain. In terms of the Policy, the Panel finds that Respondent has used the disputed domain name to attract, for commercial gain, internet users to its online location by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of that location.

 

The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied the third and final element of the Policy.

 

DECISION

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

 

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

 

 

 

Debrett G Lyons, Panelist

Dated: November 13, 2025