Westmore · UDRP DecisionHondahelper.com
The Panel ordered transfer of <hondahelper.com>. It found the domain confusingly similar to Complainant’s registered HONDA mark because it combined HONDA with the word “helper,” a phrase also used in Complainant’s Southern California advertising. Respondent did not rebut Complainant’s prima facie showing concerning rights or legitimate interests. Based on the widely known character of the HONDA mark, the domain’s use for a stress-management website, Respondent’s communications after receiving a cease-and-desist letter, and Respondent’s failure to respond to the Complaint, the Panel found registration and use in bad faith.
The timeline behind hondahelper.com
Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.
Westmore reconstructs the full history behind hondahelper.com — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive — as part of UDRP Intelligence:
The case illustrates how a domain that combines a widely known mark with a word associated with the complainant’s advertising can satisfy confusing similarity and contribute to the overall case against a defaulting respondent. It also shows the practical importance of responding with evidence when a domain is claimed to represent an unrelated acronym or business concept.
Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.
WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION American Honda Motor Co., Inc. v. Brendan Bellefeuille, Stressx Case No. D2016-1023 1. The Parties Complainant is American Honda Motor Co., Inc. of Torrance, California, United States of America (“United States”), represented by Phillips Ryther & Winchester, United States. Respondent is Brendan Bellefeuille, Stressx of Boston, Massachusetts, United States. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <hondahelper.com> is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on May 21, 2016. On May 23, 2016, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On May 24, 2016, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”). In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on May 31, 2016. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was June 20, 2016. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on June 21, 2016. The Center appointed M. Scott Donahey as the sole panelist in this matter on July 1, 2016. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7. 4. Factual Background Complainant is a subsidiary company of Honda Motor Co., Ltd., one of the largest manufacturers of motorcycles, engines, automobiles, and related products in the world. Complainant was established in 1959 in the United States of America, and has been selling automobiles in the United States since at least 1972. North America is the largest market for Honda automobiles, with approximately 84% of the automobiles sold in the United States being manufactured in North America. Complaint, Exhibit D. Complainant has registered numerous trademarks for the mark HONDA with the United States Patent and Trademark Office, dating back to at least April 1967. Complaint, Exhibits E and F. Since 2006, Southern California Honda dealers have instituted and promulgated an advertising campaign wherein Honda employees act as “Honda Helpers,” performing various acts of kindness for Southern California residents. The “Honda Helpers” wear blue uniforms bearing the HONDA trademark and trademarked logo. Complaint, Exhibits G and H. The good deeds performed by the “Honda Helpers” have been depicted and promoted on the Internet. Complaint, Exhibits I, J, K, L, and M. Respondent registered the disputed domain name on December 2, 2015. Respondent has been using the disputed domain name to resolve to a web site captioned, “High Output No Downtime Approach”, purportedly promoting a stress management program for employees. Complaint, Exhibit N. Upon discovering the web site, Complainant had its counsel send Respondent a cease and desist letter dated March 19, 2016. Complaint, Exhibit P. Following a series of communications with Complainant’s counsel, Respondent said he would get back to Complainant, but that Respondent did not feel he was cybersquatting. Id. As of May 19, 2016, the web site has not been taken down. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Respondent’s HONDA trademark, that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, in that Respondent is not known by the disputed domain name, that Respondent has not been authorized by Honda to use the HONDA trademarks in any way, that Respondent has no connection to Complainant or its related companies, and that Respondent has never made any bona fide use of the domain name. Finally, Complainant contends that Respondent has acted in bad faith. B. Respondent Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs the Panel as to the principles the Panel is to use in determining the dispute: “A Panel shall 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 directs that the complainant must prove each of the following: 1) that the domain name registered by the respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; and, 2) that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and, 3) that the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The disputed domain name consists of Complainant’s registered trademark HONDA to which the English word “helper” has been appended. The phrase “Honda Helper” has been used by Complainant in Southern California on the Internet and in advertising to publicize the good citizen assistance of Honda employees to those in the Southern California community. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s registered trademark. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The consensus view of UDRP panelists concerning the burden of establishing no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name is as follows: While the overall burden of proof rests with the complainant, panels have recognized that this could result in the often impossible task of proving a negative, requiring information that is often primarily within the knowledge of the respondent. Therefore, a complainant is required to make out an initial prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests. Once such prima facie case is made, respondent carries the burden of demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the respondent fails to come forward with such appropriate allegations or evidence, a complainant is generally deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the UDRP. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions , Second Edition (“WIPO Overview, 2.0”), Section 2.1. In the present case Complainant alleges that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name and Respondent has failed to assert any such rights. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith In the present case, the Panel notes that Complainant’s trademark is widely known and that Respondent is using the disputed domain name to resolve to a web site that appears to be currently inactive but which was used to advertise the launch of a stress management program. Complainant’s counsel communicated with Respondent, advising Respondent that Complainant believed that the disputed domain name was confusingly similar to Complainant’s HONDA trademark and that Respondent had registered and was using the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent indicated that he did not believe he was a cybersquatter, but said that he would get back to Complainant’s counsel. Respondent did not do so, nor did Respondent appear and respond to the Complaint in this matter. Accordingly, and based on the evidence provided by Complainant, the Panel finds that Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. 7. Decision For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain name, <hondahelper.com>, be transferred to Complainant. M. Scott Donahey Sole Panelist Date: July 14, 2016
Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.
What Westmore sees around hondahelper.com
The decision is only the record. Westmore connects it to the cases, authorities, panelists, parties and domain evidence surrounding it.
A short, grounded explanation drawn only from this decision's record — not legal advice or a prediction.
Grounded in the Westmore record for this decision. Research/informational only — not legal advice or a prediction of any outcome.
The decision is only the beginning.
You've seen what happened. Now discover the deeper intelligence behind the case, the panelist, the parties and the authorities that matter.
Go beyond the public record: see how this case has been cited, find comparable decisions, analyze the panelist and apply the relevant authorities to your Matter.
Westmore Professional · $395/month
Research with UDRP IntelligenceWestmore AI drafts an attorney-review-ready UDRP response from your facts, grounded in the exact panel and closest precedent.
$895 one-time per matter · no subscription required. Self-help drafting aid — not legal advice.
Build your responseWestmore UDRP records draw on WIPO-indexed decisions and are provided for research and informational purposes only. Not legal advice, a clearance opinion, or a prediction of any outcome.