DECISION

 

Workday, Inc. v. Zhi Chao Yang

Claim Number: FA2402002083944

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Workday, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Caitlin R. Byczko of Barnes & Thornburg LLP, Indiana, USA. Respondent is Zhi Chao Yang ("Respondent"), China.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <wwwmyworkdayjobs.com>, registered with Chengdu West Dimension Digital Technology Co., Ltd.

 

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.

 

Paul M. DeCicco, as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on February 15, 2024; Forum received payment on February 15, 2024.

 

On February 18, 2024, Chengdu West Dimension Digital Technology Co., Ltd. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <wwwmyworkdayjobs.com> domain name is registered with Chengdu West Dimension Digital Technology Co., Ltd. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Chengdu West Dimension Digital Technology Co., Ltd. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Chengdu West Dimension Digital Technology Co., Ltd. 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 26, 2024, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Chinese and English Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 18, 2024 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@wwwmyworkdayjobs.com. Also on February 26, 2024, the Chinese and English 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 in Chinese and English.

 

On March 19, 2024, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Paul M. DeCicco, 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.

 

PRELIMINARY ISSUE: LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDING

Pursuant to UDRP Rule 11(a), the Panel may determine the language of the proceedings.

 

In the instant case the at-issue domain name, <wwwmyworkdayjobs.com>, has no meaning in any language other than English. The words contained it the domain name are each in English words and have no meaning other than in the English language. Further, Respondent has targeted a trademark holder that is headquartered in the United States.

 

Since it appears that Respondent likely has a command of the English language, requiring Complainant to translate all documents submitted in this proceeding from English would result in Complainant having to incur unnecessary additional time and costs and might well delay the proceeding without any benefit to either party. Notably, Respondent, although having been given appropriate notice of the Complaint, has failed to offer any objection to going forward in English.

 

Therefore, in light of all the foregoing, the Panel finds this proceeding should continue in English. 

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant contends as follows:

 

Complainant delivers human capital management, financial management, payroll solutions, time tracking, planning, and analytics applications designed for organizations of all sizes.

 

Complainant asserts rights in the WORKDAY mark through its registration of the mark with multiple trademark agencies, including the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO).

 

Respondent's <wwwmyworkdayjobs.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's WORKDAY mark as it incorporates Complainant's mark merely adding the generic terms "www," "my" and "jobs," and concluding with the ".com" generic top-level domain to form the domain name.

 

Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <wwwmyworkdayjobs.com> domain name. Complainant has not authorized or licensed Respondent to use the WORKDAY mark or any version thereof; nor is Respondent commonly known by the at-issue domain name. Further, Respondent is not using <wwwmyworkdayjobs.com> in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, Respondent is using the domain name to address a parked webpage which includes links to third-parties.

 

Respondent registered and uses the <wwwmyworkdayjobs.com> domain name in bad faith. Respondent does not use the domain name to display active content. Rather, Respondent uses the domain name to address a parking page that features click though advertising links to Complainant's competition. Respondent was aware of Complainant's marks when it registered <wwwmyworkdayjobs.com>. Respondent intentionally attempts to attract, for commercial gain, internet users to Respondent's website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's mark as to the source of Respondent's website and of the goods promoted on such website. Respondent registered the at-issue domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant's WORKDAY mark.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant has rights in the WORKDAY trademark.

 

Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant and had not been authorized to use Complainant's trademark in any capacity.

 

Respondent registered the at‑issue domain name after Complainant acquired rights in the WORKDAY trademark.

 

Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to address a parked webpage that hosts links to third-parties.

 

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 3.0 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").

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

The at-issue domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights.

 

Complainant shows that it has registered its WORKDAY trademark with the USPTO and with other trademark agencies worldwide. Any of such registrations demonstrate Complainant's rights in a mark under the Policy. See BGK Trademark Holdings, LLC & Beyoncé Giselle Knowles-Carter v. Chanphut / Beyonce Shop, FA 1626334 (Forum Aug. 3, 2015) (asserting that Complainant's registration with the USPTO (or any other governmental authority) adequately proves its rights under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)).

 

Respondent's at-issue domain name consists of Complainant's WORKDAY trademark prefixed by the terms "www" and "my" and followed by the term "jobs" with all followed by the ".com" top-level domain name. The differences between Respondent's domain name and Complainant's trademark are insufficient to distinguish the domain name from Complainant's WORKDAY mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Therefore, the Panel concludes that Respondent's at-issue domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's WORKDAY trademark. See Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) ("Where 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.").

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must first make out a prima facie case showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of an at-issue domain name and then the burden, in effect, shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm't Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006).

 

Respondent lacks both rights and legitimate interests in respect the at-issue domain name. Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant's trademark in any capacity and as discussed below there are no Policy ¶ 4(c) circumstances from which the Panel might find that Respondent has rights or interests in respect of the <wwwmyworkdayjobs.com> domain name. See Emerson Electric Co. v. golden humble / golden globals, FA 1787128 (Forum June 11, 2018) ("lack of evidence in the record to indicate a respondent is authorized to use [the] complainant's mark may support a finding that [the] respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)").

 

The WHOIS information for the at-issue domain name identifies the domain name's registrant as "Zhi Chao Yang" and the record before the Panel contains no evidence tending to prove that Respondent is commonly known by <wwwmyworkdayjobs.com>. The Panel therefore concludes that Respondent is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Braun Corp. v. Loney, FA 699652 (Forum July 7, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain names where the WHOIS information, as well as all other information in the record, gave no indication that the respondent was commonly known by the domain names, and the complainant had not authorized the respondent to register a domain name containing its registered mark).

 

Respondent uses <wwwmyworkdayjobs.com> to address a parking page hosting links to third-parties concerning "jobs". Such use of the <wwwmyworkdayjobs.com> domain name is thus not indicative of a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor of a non-commercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Insomniac Holdings, LLC v. Mark Daniels, FA 1735969 (Forum July 15, 2017) ("Respondent's use of <edcorlando.xyz> also does not qualify as a bona fide offering… the <edcorlando.xyz> domain name resolves to a site containing pay-per-click hyperlinks and advertisements… Since these kinds of advertisements generate revenue for the holder of a domain name, they cannot be noncommercial; further, they do not qualify as a bona fide offering.").

 

Given the forgoing, Complainant satisfies its burden under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) and demonstrates Respondent's lack of rights and lack of legitimate interests in respect of the at-issue domain name.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

As discussed below without being exhaustive, there is evidence from which the Panel concludes that Respondent acted in bad faith pursuant to the Policy.

 

Respondent uses its confusingly similar <wwwmyworkdayjobs.com> domain name to address a webpage displaying what appear to be pay-per-click links. The link labels each contain the term "job" which is suggestive of Complainant's business. Using the domain name in such manner is disruptive to Complainant's business, takes unfair advantage of the confusion between the at-issue domain name and Complainant's trademark, and indicates Respondent's bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Vivint, Inc. v. Online Management, FA 1549084 (Forum Apr. 23, 2014) (holding that the respondent had registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith according to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where the disputed domain name resolved to a parking page that featured no content besides sponsored advertisements and links).

 

Moreover, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in WORKDAY when it registered <wwwmyworkdayjobs.com> as a domain name. Respondent's actual knowledge is evident from the notoriety of Complainant's trademark and from Respondent's use of the domain name to address a webpage displaying links appearing to be suggestive of Complainant's business. Respondent's registration and use of the confusingly similar domain name with knowledge of Complainant's trademark rights in WORKDAY additionally shows Respondent's bad faith registration and use of <wwwmyworkdayjobs.com> under the Policy. See Minicards Vennootschap Onder FIrma Amsterdam v. Moscow Studios, FA 1031703 (Forum Sept. 5, 2007) (holding that respondent registered a domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) after concluding that respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's mark when registering the disputed domain name); see also, Univision Comm'cns Inc. v. Norte, FA 1000079 (Forum Aug. 16, 2007) (rejecting the respondent's contention that it did not register the disputed domain name in bad faith since the panel found that the respondent had knowledge of the complainant's rights in the UNIVISION mark when registering the disputed domain name).

 

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

 

 

 

Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist

Dated: March 20, 2024