Wd5-myworkday.com

The timeline behind wd5-myworkday.com

Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.

Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.

NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM DECISION Workday, Inc. v. Karl Schnurch / EdenMedia Claim Number: FA2602002204009 PARTIES Complainant is Workday, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Caitlin R. Byczko of Barnes & Thornburg LLP, Indiana, USA. Respondent is Karl Schnurch / EdenMedia ("Respondent"), Seychelles. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <wd5-myworkday.com>, registered with Key-Systems GmbH. 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. Sandra J. Franklin 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, Key-Systems GmbH confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <wd5-myworkday.com> domain name is registered with Key-Systems GmbH and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Key-Systems GmbH has verified that Respondent is bound by the Key-Systems GmbH 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 e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@wd5-myworkday.com. Also on February 10, 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 March 3, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Sandra J. Franklin 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. Respondent's <wd5-myworkday.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's WORKDAY mark. 2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <wd5-myworkday.com> domain name. 3. Respondent registered and uses the <wd5-myworkday.com> domain name in bad faith. B. Respondent did not file a Response. FINDINGS Complainant offers various goods and services related to human resources and holds a registration for its WORKDAY mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") (Reg. No. 3,280,638, registered on August 14, 2007). Respondent registered the <wd5-myworkday.com> domain name on March 26, 2019, and uses it primarily to compete with Complainant. 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 Complainant has rights in the WORKDAY mark through registration with the USPTO. See Liberty Global Logistics, LLC v. damilola emmanuel / tovary services limited, FA 1738536 (Forum Aug. 4, 2017) (stating, "Registration of a mark with the USPTO sufficiently establishes the required rights in the mark for purposes of the Policy."). Respondent's <wd5-myworkday.com> domain name uses Complainant's WORKDAY mark and adds "wd5" (using similar nomenclature to domain names owned by Complainant), "-my" and a gTLD. These changes do not sufficiently distinguish a disputed domain name from a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Ant Small and Micro Financial Services Group Co., Ltd. v. Ant Fin, FA 1759326 (Forum Jan. 2, 2018) ("Respondent's <antfinancial-investorrelations.com> Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant's ANT FINANCIAL mark. It incorporates the mark entirely. It adds a hyphen, the descriptive terms "investor relations," and the ".com" gTLD, but these additions are insufficient to distinguish the Domain name from complainant's mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).") The Panel therefore finds that Respondent's <wd5-myworkday.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's WORKDAY mark. The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Rights or Legitimate Interests Once Complainant makes a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), 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."). Complainant contends that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the <wd5-myworkday.com> domain name as Respondent is not commonly known by the domain names and Complainant has not authorized or licensed to Respondent any rights in the WORKDAY mark. The WHOIS information for the disputed domain names lists the registrant as "Karl Schnurch / EdenMedia". Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names, and thus has no rights under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. Suzen Khan / Nancy Jain / Andrew Stanzy, FA 1741129 (Forum Aug. 16, 2017) (finding that respondent had no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names when the identifying information provided by WHOIS was unrelated to the domain names or respondent's use of the same); see also 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)"). Complainant argues that Respondent also fails to use the <wd5-myworkday.com> domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use as Respondent is using the domain name to divert users to a website that competes with Complainant. Complainant provides screenshots showing that Respondent uses the disputed domain name to resolve to products and services similar to those offered by Complainant. The Panel finds that this is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, and thus Respondent has no rights under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See HS TM, LLC v. Grace Reed / textbooktaleboard, FA 2192217 (Forum Jan. 16, 2026) (citing Georgia-Pacific LLC v. Chanchai Wiriya, FA 1947361 (Forum June 22, 2021) ("This Panel must conclude that Respondent is therefore using the disputed domain name to create confusion among Internet users, attracting them to Respondent's website using Complainant's trademark and then presenting them with links to third party websites for commercial gain. Such 'bait and switch' use must be categorized as bad faith for the purposes of the Policy.") The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Registration and Use in Bad Faith Complainant argues that Respondent registered and uses the <wd5-myworkday.com> domain name in bad faith by using it to redirect users looking for Complainant to a website that contains links and offers services that compete with those offered by Complainant. Using a disputed domain name to divert Internet traffic for a respondent's gain evinces bad faith attraction for commercial gain under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See HS TM, LLC v. Grace Reed / textbooktaleboard, FA 2192217 (Forum Jan. 16, 2026) (finding "Complaint argues that Respondent creates a likelihood of confusion with Complainant and its trademarks by registering a domain name that is confusingly similar to the HENRY SCHEIN mark and its domain names and then redirects to a website which promotes the services of an online gaming and gambling platform, unrelated to Complainant. This sort of "bait-and-switch" tactic is evidence of bad faith registration and use"); see also Adobe Inc. v. Md. Mizanur Rahmani, FA 1968753 (Forum Nov. 5, 2021) (finding bad faith where respondent was taking predatory advantage of complainant's mark which was readily identifiable in the domain name to divert Internet traffic to respondent's competing website). Accordingly, the Panel finds bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). Complainant also argues Respondent registered the <wd5-myworkday.com> domain name with knowledge of Complainant's rights in the WORKDAY mark. The Panel agrees, noting Respondent's use of the disputed domain name to offer services in competition with Complainant, and finds that Respondent registered the disputed domain name with full knowledge of Complainant's rights, demonstrating further bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). 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 "actual knowledge of Complainant's mark when registering the disputed domain name"). Complainant also provides evidence showing that Respondent has been the subject of numerous prior adverse UDRP rulings, demonstrating a pattern of bad faith. The Panel thus finds further bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii). See Forum Case Nos. 2198545, 2199171, 2159673, 2152582, 2108166, 2097856, 2084029, 2070510, and 2048071; and WIPO Case Nos. D2025-4815, D2025-3423, D2025-2905, D2025-1945, D2024-4384, D2024-3669, D2023-4733, D2023-4462, D2023-4446, D2023-4112, D2023-1724, D2023-0973, D2022-4661, D2022-3883, D2022-3826, D2022-1182, D2022-0175, and DCO2022-0047. See also Provide Com., Inc. v. Jardimar Holdings Corp / Charingola, FA 1502077 (Forum June 27, 2013) ("[T]he existence of previous UDRP decisions where Respondent was found to have registered a domain name in bad faith reveals Respondent's pattern of cybersquatting behavior. The Panel construes Respondent's pattern of such behavior as evidence that Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith as well.") The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied 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 <wd5-myworkday.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Sandra J. Franklin, Panelist Dated: March 4, 2026 Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page. Click Here to return to our Home Page

Source of record: FORUM . Reproduced for research; FORUM is the authoritative source.