DECISION

 

Workday, Inc. v. Jay Bob

Claim Number: FA2606002225987

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Workday, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Caitlin R Byczko of Barnes & Thornburg LLP, Indiana, USA. Respondent is Jay Bob ("Respondent"), California, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <workdayjobstories.com>, registered with Dynadot 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.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on June 8, 2026. Forum received payment on June 8, 2026.

 

On June 9, 2026, Dynadot Inc confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <workdayjobstories.com> domain name is registered with Dynadot Inc and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Dynadot Inc has verified that Respondent is bound by the Dynadot 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 June 11, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 1, 2026 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@workdayjobstories.com.  Also on June 11, 2026, 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 July 2, 2026, 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.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

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

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant is a leading provider of enterprise cloud applications for human resources and finance. Complainant has used the WORKDAY trademark in commerce since at least as early as 2006, and uses the <workday.com> domain name, along with associated Workday-formative subdomains, for key aspects of its business operations.

 

The <workdayjobstories.com> domain name is confusingly similar and nearly identical to the WORKDAY mark.

 

Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <workdayjobstories.com> domain name. Respondent is not associated with Complainant and Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent's use of the WORKDAY mark. Despite this lack of authorization, Respondent has incorporated the WORKDAY mark in its entirety into domain name, which falsely suggests an affiliation, sponsorship, or endorsement by Complainant. There is no evidence that Respondent has been commonly known by the domain name prior to its registration. Respondent is using the domain name to impersonate Complainant through emails. This does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use.

 

Respondent has registered and is using the <workdayjobstories.com> domain name in bad faith, as evidenced by its attempts to impersonate Complainant in emails, using Complainant's WORKDAY mark.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant has established all the elements entitling it to relief.

 

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 Jurisprudential Overview 3.1 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").

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

Complainant has shown that it has rights in the trademark WORKDAY, including USPTO Registration No. 5,131,360, registered on January 31, 2017 for inter alia "Computer software for searching, locating and transferring information across global computer communications networks", in International Class 9.

 

It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. The standing (or threshold) test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the complainant's trademark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview 3.1, ¶ 1.7.

 

The Panel finds Respondent's <workdayjobstories.com> domain name to be confusingly similar to Complainant's WORKDAY mark, only differing by the addition of the descriptive words "job stories", which are insufficient to distinguish the domain name from Complainant's mark. The inconsequential ".com" generic top-level domain ("gTLD") may be ignored under this element. See Rollerblade, Inc. v. Chris McCrady, D2000-0429 (WIPO June 25, 2000).

 

Complainant has established this element.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides 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 Respondent's rights or legitimate interests to a domain name for purposes of Paragraph 4(a)(ii):

 

(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 <workdayjobstories.com> domain name was registered on January 13, 2026, several years after the registration of Complainant's WORKDAY mark. It does not resolve to an active website. Complainant has shown that, on April 7, 2026, an email was sent from "Workday | Talent Connect", with the reply address <hrteam@workdayjobstories.com>, stating:

 

"We are Workday, a leading provider of enterprise cloud applications that empower organizations to manage their finance and human resources seamlessly." 

 

The email purported to invite the recipient to apply for the Vice President of Marketing role at 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 <workdayjobstories.com> domain name. See JUUL Labs, Inc. v. Dryx Emerson / KMF Events LTD, FA 1849706 (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.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

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 WORKDAY mark when Respondent registered the <workdayjobstories.com> domain name and that Respondent registered and is using the domain name in bad faith to impersonate 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 <workdayjobstories.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Alan L. Limbury, Panelist

Dated: July 3, 2026