Workday, Inc., the enterprise cloud software giant, filed a UDRP complaint against the Cayman Islands registrant of the domain Worday.com.
The domain, registered in 2012, drops the letter “k” from Workday’s well-known mark and resolved to a parked page with PPC ads, some promoting competing services. Complainant’s evidence also showed subdomains had been created to impersonate Workday.
The Respondent did not reply to the Complaint. The Forum panelist found the domain to be a classic case of typosquatting, noting the confusing similarity and the lack of any rights or legitimate interests. Registration and use were deemed in bad faith, particularly given the impersonation attempts and ad monetization.
Final decision: Grant the transfer of the domain Worday.com to the Complainant.
Copyright © 2025 DomainGang.com · All Rights Reserved.Workday, Inc. v. [Registrant]
Claim Number: FA2508002170038
PARTIES
Complainant is Workday, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Caitlin R. Byczko of Barnes & Thornburg LLP, Indiana, USA. Respondent is [Registrant] (“Respondent”), Cayman Islands.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is worday.com, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.
PANEL
The undersigned certifies that they have acted independently and impartially and to the best of their knowledge have no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Héctor Ariel Manoff as Panelist.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on August 6, 2025; Forum received payment on August 6, 2025.
On August 7, 2025, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the worday.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 August 8, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 28, 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@worday.com. Also on August 8, 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 response from Respondent, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On August 29, 2025, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Héctor Ariel Manoff 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
1- Complainant, Workday, Inc., owns trademark WORKDAY in United States and many other countries, which has been used since 2006.
2- Complainant is a leading provider of enterprise cloud applications for human resources and finance, founded in 2005.
3- Complainant’s goods and services are sold under the WORKDAY® trademark and through Complainant’s domain name workday.com.
4- The disputed domain name worday.com was registered in 2012 and contains a typo version of the WORKDAY mark (worday) and the generic gTLD “.com”.
5- The disputed domain name is confusingly similar and nearly identical to the Complainant’s trademarks.
6- Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
7- Respondent is not commonly known by any WORKDAY marks or the disputed domain name.
8- The disputed domain name has been used to register many subdomains and some of them impersonate Complainant.
9- The disputed domain name resolves to a parked web page, which provides links to click through advertisements which advertise Complainant’s competing services.
10- Respondent has used many subdomains of the disputed domain names to impersonate Complainant.
11- Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to display Complainant’s trademarks in its click through advertisements is evidence of bad faith.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
FINDINGS
Complainant, Workday, Inc., owns the WORKDAY trademark and has used it in connection with provision of enterprise cloud applications for human resources and finance since 2006. Complainant also operates the domain name workday.com for promoting and selling its services. Respondent has registered the domain name worday.com in 2012 and it 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 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 Panel finds that the disputed domain name, worday.com, is nearly identical and confusingly similar to Complainant’s WORKDAY trademark (Exhibit B) and domain workday.com (Exhibit C).
The only difference is the omission of the letter “k”. The Panel concludes that the domain name is a misspelled version of Complainant’s trademark and that this slight difference can lead the consumers into confusion about the services identified. See Acme Lift Company, L.L.C. v. VistaPrint Technologies Ltd, FA 1607039 (Forum Apr. 11, 2015) (stating, “Where a respondent has created a domain name in an effort to visually deceive Internet users via a simple misspelling (and when such misspellings are visually similar to the mark), a finding of confusing similarity under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) is appropriate.”). See also Lucasfilm Entertainment Company Ltd. LLC v George Ring, FA 1673825 (Forum June 7, 2016) (finding that, although a respondent’s domain name lukasfilm.com incorporated the LUCASFILM mark of another and merely substituted a ‘k’ for the ‘c,’ it was nonetheless confusingly similar to that mark).
The disputed domain name worday.com incorporates Complainant’s WORKDAY mark and adds the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.COM”.
The Panel finds that the term WORKDAY is a fanciful and arbitrary term in relation to Complainant’s services and that it is clear that Respondent knew it belonged to Complainant. Respondent has just omitted one letter. The Panel finds that the domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark since the omission of one letter and the addition of the generic top-level domain are not sufficiently distinctive. (See Microsoft Corporation v. Thong Tran Thanh, FA 1653187 (Forum Jan. 21, 2016) (determining that confusing similarity exists where [a disputed domain name] contains Complainant’s entire mark and differs only by the addition of a generic or descriptive phrase and top-level domain, the differences between the domain name and its contained trademark are insufficient to differentiate one from the other for the purposes of the Policy); see also, 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”).
The Panel finds that the domain name is almost identical and confusingly similar to Complainant marks under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Rights or Legitimate Interests
Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Advanced International Marketing Corporation v. AA-1 Corp, FA 780200 (Forum Nov. 2, 2011) (finding that a complainant must offer some evidence to make its prima facie case and satisfy Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)); see also Neal & Massey Holdings Limited v. Gregory Ricks, FA 1549327 (Forum Apr. 12, 2014) (“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”).
The Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name because Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use the WORKDAY mark. 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)”).
In addition, Respondent has neither filed a response nor submitted evidence to prove that Respondent has any trademark rights in the disputed domain names.
WHOIS information does not suggest that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name (Exhibit G). This Panel finds that Respondent has never been commonly known by the domain name.
The evidence submitted by Complainant shows that Respondent’s use of the disputed domains is not a bona fide offering of goods (Exhibit H and I). The domain name resolves to a parked web page, which provides links to click through advertisements which advertise Complainant’s competing services.
This Panel agrees with Complainant that Respondent is not using the domain name in connection with a legitimate noncommercial use or fair use under Policy 4(c)(iii).
Therefore, the Panel agrees that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names and does not have legitimate interest under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
Complainant has proved trademark rights (Exhibit B) and use before the disputed domain name’s date of registration (Exhibit C, D and E).
According to the evidence submitted by Complainant, some of its WORKDAY trademarks were firstly filed in 2005 and granted in 2007 (Reg. No. 3280638 and 3326815).
The Panel finds that the registration of the disputed domain name was done with Complainant’s mark in mind since the domain name includes it along with the omission of one letter. In addition, Complainant uses the workday.com domain name to promote its services (Exhibit C).
In the Panel’s point of view the cited facts, which were neither responded nor refuted by Respondent, are sufficient evidence to support that the registration of the domain name was registered in bad faith.
As regards to the use of the disputed domain name, this Panel also finds that it was done in bad faith. Complainant has submitted evidence to prove that the disputed domain name resolves to a parked web page, which provides links to click through advertisements which advertise Complainant’s competing services. (Exhibit H and I).
The Panel concludes that Respondent has the intention of creating an association with Complainant and its services.
This Panel concludes that Respondent has registered the domain name with the intent to attract and divert Internet users to the corresponding websites for its own benefit. See Carey Int’l, Inc. v. Kogan, FA 486191 (Forum July 29, 2005) (“[T]he Panel finds that Respondent is capitalizing on the confusing similarity of its domain names to benefit from the valuable goodwill that Complainant has established in its marks. Consequently, it is found that Respondent registered and used the domain names in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).”);
The Panel determines that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
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 worday.com domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Héctor Ariel Manoff, Panelist
Dated: September 5, 2025
