DECISION

 

CDK Global, LLC v. Accounts Payable BesTex Solutions

Claim Number: FA2602002204055

 

PARTIES

Complainant is CDK Global, LLC ("Complainant"), United States, represented by Melissa A. Vallone of Barnes & Thornburg LLP, United States. Respondent is Accounts Payable BesTex Solutions ("Respondent"), United States.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <cdkmesseging.com>, registered with Wild West Domains, 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 February 6, 2026; Forum received payment on February 6, 2026.

 

On February 9, 2026, Wild West Domains, LLC confirmed by email to Forum that the <cdkmesseging.com> domain name is registered with Wild West Domains, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Wild West Domains, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Wild West Domains, 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 February 10, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 2, 2026 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@cdkmesseging.com. Also on February 10, 2026, 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 March 3, 2026, 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 a worldwide provider of data and technology solutions for the automotive, heavy truck, recreation, and heavy equipment industries. Complainant has used CDK GLOBAL and other CDK-formative marks in connection with its goods and services since at least as early as 2014. Complainant owns longstanding United States trademark registrations for CDK GLOBAL and related marks in standard character and stylized form, along with similar registrations in many other jurisdictions.

 

The disputed domain name <cdkmesseging.com> was registered in December 2025. The name is registered in the name of a privacy registration service on behalf of Respondent. The domain name redirects to a website that displays the domain name and several sponsored links. Complainant alleges, with supporting evidence, that Respondent is using the domain name to impersonate one of Complainant's representatives in email correspondence in an attempt to obtain payments from Complainant's customers. Complainant states that Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name, is not associated with Complainant, and is not licensed or otherwise authorized to use Complainant's marks.

 

Complainant contends on the above grounds that the disputed domain name <cdkmesseging.com> is confusingly similar to its CDK GLOBAL and other CDK-formative marks; 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 Select UDRP Questions, § 4.3 (version 3.1, 2026), available at https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview; UDRP Perspectives on Recent Jurisprudence, §§ 0.2, 0.8 (updated June 2, 2025), available at https://udrpperspectives.org/; 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 <cdkmesseging.com> incorporates the distinctive portion of Complainant's registered CDK GLOBAL trademark, adding a misspelling of the generic term "messaging" and the ".com" top-level domain. These alterations do not substantially diminish the similarity between the domain name and Complainant's mark. See, e.g., Black Diamond Equipment, LTD v. Lu jiaWang, D2023-4866 (WIPO Jan. 18, 2024) (finding <bdoutdoorstore.com> confusingly similar to dominant feature of BD DRY mark); BlackBerry Ltd. v. Contact GoDaddy.com, LLC Customer 2272690062 / Carolina Rodrigues, Fundacion Comercio Electronico, D2019-0786 (WIPO June 11, 2019) (finding <bbmmessaging.com> confusingly similar to BBM); TWAComm.com, Inc. v. Chris Manouel /Domains by Proxy, Inc., D2008-0843 (WIPO Aug. 6, 2008) (finding <twaphone.com> confusingly similar to distinctive aspect of TWACOMM.COM mark); America Online, Inc. v. Tony Lusk aka DotComSales Organization, FA 283538 (Forum July 26, 2004) (finding <icqmessaging.com> confusingly similar to ICQ). 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 the distinctive portion of Complainant's registered mark without authorization. It has been used to redirect traffic to a pay-per-click link page and to impersonate a representative of Complainant in email correspondence for fraudulent purposes. Such use does not give rise to rights or legitimate interests under the Policy. See, e.g., CDK Global, LLC v. teka qila, FA 2153514 (Forum May 23, 2025) (finding lack of rights or interests arising from use of domain name to impersonate complainant in furtherance of phishing scheme); BlackBerry Ltd. v. Contact GoDaddy.com, LLC Customer 2272690062 / Carolina Rodrigues, Fundacion Comercio Electronico, supra (finding lack of rights or interests arising from redirection of domain name to parking pages composed of sponsored links and advertisements).

 

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)(iii) of the Policy, 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 used a privacy registration service and what appears to the Panel to be at least partially fictitious underlying registration information to register a domain name incorporating the distinctive portion of Complainant's registered mark, and has used the domain name to impersonate a representative of Complainant in email correspondence for fraudulent purposes. Such circumstances are indicative of bad faith registration and use under the Policy. See, e.g., CDK Global, LLC v. teka qila, supra (finding bad faith registration and use in similar circumstances). The Panel so finds.

 

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 <cdkmesseging.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

David E. Sorkin, Panelist

Dated: March 3, 2026