Westmore · UDRP DecisionSantamonicahonda.com
The Panel ordered transfer of <santamonicahonda.com>. It found the domain confusingly similar to the HONDA trademark because it incorporated the mark in full with the geographic term “Santa Monica.” The Respondent lacked rights or legitimate interests because the domain had been used to promote automobiles offered by competitors and there was no evidence that the Respondent was commonly known by the domain. The Panel found bad-faith registration and use based on the composition of the domain and its redirection to third-party websites promoting competing automobiles, from which the Panel inferred an intent to attract users for commercial gain through confusion with the HONDA mark.
The timeline behind santamonicahonda.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 santamonicahonda.com — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive — as part of UDRP Intelligence:
The decision illustrates a geographic-term domain pattern in which a famous or long-established automobile mark is combined with a city name that resembles an authorized dealership naming convention. The Panel treated the domain’s competitive redirections as strong evidence both against legitimate interests and in favor of bad faith, notwithstanding that its then-current destination concerned Bitcoin rather than automobiles.
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. Whoisproxy.com / Amir Cohen, Hush Privacy Protection Ltd. Case No. D2019-2246 1. The Parties The Complainant is American Honda Motor Co., Inc., United States of America (“United States”), represented by Phillips, Ryther & Winchester, United States. The Respondent is Whoisproxy.com, United States / Amir Cohen, Hush Privacy Protection Ltd., Seychelles. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <santamonicahonda.com> (the “Domain Name”) is registered with Key-Systems GmbH (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on September 16, 2019. On September 17, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On September 18, 2019, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the Domain Name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on September 18, 2019 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on September 23, 2019. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended 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 the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on September 30, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was October 20, 2019. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on October 22, 2019. The Center appointed Ian Lowe as the sole panelist in this matter on October 30, 2019. 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 The Complainant is the United States subsidiary of Honda Motor Co., Ltd (“Honda”), a Japanese corporation. The Complainant has the exclusive right to use trademarks belonging to Honda in the United States and to enforce Honda’s trademark rights in the United States. Honda claims to be the world’s largest motorcycle manufacturer and the world’s largest engine maker and is one of the world’s leading manufacturers of automobiles. It was founded in 1946. The Complainant was established as Honda’s first overseas subsidiary in 1959. New and certified used Honda automobiles are sold through a network of Honda dealers, which are authorized by Honda to carry on business under names that include HONDA. Dealers so authorized often combine HONDA with the name of the city or geographic area in which the dealership is located. Honda has dealerships serving Santa Monica, California, United States, including a recently-opened dealership that is using the business name “Honda Santa Monica”. Honda is the registered proprietor of many trademarks comprising HONDA, including United States trademark number 826,779 HONDA registered on April 4, 1967. The Domain Name was registered on October 3, 2005 and currently resolves to news-oriented websites associated with Bitcoin. The Complainant first learned of the registration of the Domain Name in July 2019, when Honda Santa Monica attempted to register it. At that time, the Domain Name resolved to a website at “www.carpricesecrets.com” that provides online quotes for new cars from dealers in direct and indirect competition with Honda. Subsequently, the Domain Name resolved to a website at “www.volvocars.com” advertising competing autos for sale. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to its HONDA trademark, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name and that the Respondent registered and is using the Domain Name in bad faith within the meaning of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings For this Complaint to succeed in relation to the Domain Name, the Complainant must prove that: (i) the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and (ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and (iii) the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainant has uncontested rights in the HONDA mark, both by virtue of the trademark registrations and as a result of the goodwill and reputation acquired through the use of the mark over very many years. Ignoring the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com”, the Domain Name comprises the entirety of the HONDA mark with the addition of the geographical name “santa monica”. In the view of the Panel, this addition does not detract from the confusing similarity between the Domain Name and the HONDA mark. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Complainant has made out a strong prima facie case that the Respondent could have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. The Respondent has used the Domain Name not in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, but for a website promoting automobiles for sale by direct and indirect competitors of the Complainant and its authorized dealers. There is no suggestion that the Respondent has ever been known by the Domain Name. The Respondent has chosen not to respond formally to the Complaint or to take any steps to counter the prima facie case established by the Complainant. In the circumstances, the Panel finds that the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith In light of the use to which the Domain Name has been put, and since the Domain Name comprises the HONDA trademark together with a geographical name, the Panel is in no doubt that the Respondent had the Complainant and its rights in the HONDA mark in mind when it registered the Domain Name. The Respondent has used the Domain Name to resolve to third party websites promoting automobiles for sale by direct and indirect competitors of the Complainant and its authorized dealers. Currently, the Domain Name resolves to the news-oriented websites associated with Bitcoin. In the Panel’s view, the legitimate inference is that the Respondent undertook such activity with a view to commercial gain, intending to attract Internet users to the website to which the Domain Name resolves by creating a likelihood of confusion with the HONDA mark and intending to mislead Internet users into believing that the website was associated with or endorsed by the Complainant. Accordingly, the Panel considers that this amounts to paradigm bad faith registration and use for the purposes of the Policy. 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 Domain Name <santamonicahonda.com> be transferred to the Complainant. Ian Lowe Sole Panelist Date: November 13, 2019
Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.
What Westmore sees around santamonicahonda.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.