Myautoventshade.com, Mytruxedo.com

The timeline behind myautoventshade.com

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

How each disputed name was decided in this proceeding.

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

ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION RealTruck Enterprise, Inc. v. Martin Filds Case No. D2025-5073 1. The Parties Complainant is RealTruck Enterprise, Inc., United States of America (“United States” or “U.S.”), represented by MacMillan, Sobanski & Todd, LLC, United States. Respondent is Martin Filds, United States. 2. The Domain Names and Registrar The disputed domain names <myautoventshade.com> and <mytruxedo.com> (the “Domain Names”) are registered with Sav.com, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on December 5, 2025. On December 8, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Names. On December 8, 2025, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the Domain Names which differed from the named Respondent (Redacted for Privacy) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to Complainant on December 10, 2025, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. Complainant filed amended Complaints on December 17 and 18, 2025. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended Complaints 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 December 23, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for the Response was January 12, 2026. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on January 14, 2026. page 2 The Center appointed John C. McElwaine as the sole panelist in this matter on January 22, 2026. 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 the parent company of a group of affiliated entities that produce and sell automotive aftermarket accessories. Relevant here, Complainant, through its wholly-owned subsidiaries, has rights in the trademarks AUTO VENTSHADE and TRUXEDO, among other marks. Relevant to this matter, Complainant submitted evidence of United States trademark registrations for: - AUTO VENTSHADE, U.S. Reg. No. 3,177,659, for “land vehicle accessories, namely, rear window sun deflectors, wind deflectors, sunroof wind deflectors, hood shields, stone and bug deflectors and shields, rain deflectors for use on doors and windows of automotive vehicles, covers for rear lights, louvered window covers, shades and visors for doors and windows of automotive vehicles, headlight covers, taillight covers” in Class 012, registered on November 28, 2006 (first use 1940).; and - TRUXEDO, U.S. Reg. No. 2,449,064 for “fitted covers for pickup truck beds” in Class 012, registered May 8, 2001 (first use 1999). (Hereinafter, the “AUTO VENTSHADE Mark” and the “TRUXEDO Mark”.) The Domain Name <myautoventshade.com> was registered on October 16, 2024, and the Domain Name <mytruxedo.com> was registered on May 6, 2024. The record shows that before this dispute, Respondent’s websites at the Domain Names prominently displayed Complainant’s AUTO VENTSHADE and TRUXEDO marks and offered products of the same type as Complainant’s official product offerings. As of the filing of the Complaint, the websites are currently inaccessible due to an expired or invalidated SSL certificate. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the Domain Names. Complainant contends that the Domain Names are confusingly similar to trademarks in which Complainant has rights. Complainant asserts that its AUTO VENTSHADE product is a line of automotive accessories, most notably vent visors that attach to vehicle windows to allow fresh air circulation while keeping out rain and reducing wind noise. TRUXEDO refers to a brand of soft roll-up tonneau covers designed to protect pickup truck beds from weather and theft while enhancing aerodynamics and appearance. Complainant contends that these product names function as trademarks. Complainant asserts that each Domain Name wholly incorporates one of Complainant’s trademarks (the AUTO VENTSHADE Mark or the TRUXEDO Mark) with the mere addition of the word “my” at the beginning. Complainant argues that its marks are clearly recognizable within the Domain Names and that the addition of a term like “my” does not avoid confusing similarity under the UDRP. With respect to the second element of the Policy, Complainant further asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names. Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use its AUTO VENTSHADE Mark or TRUXEDO Mark, and Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant. Complainant point out that Respondent’s actual name (Martin Filds) has no connection to “autoventshade” or “truxedo”. According to Complainant, Respondent’s use of the Domain Names has been purely to impersonate Complainant and divert customers. Complainant asserts that the websites that resolved from the Domain Names depicted use of Complainant’s trademarks in an unauthorized and illegitimate manner, for commercial gain, to trade on Complainant’s goodwill in its AUTO VENTSHADE Mark or TRUXEDO Mark to page 3 drive traffic to Respondent’s websites and away from the websites of Complainant, and to promote, discuss, and/or sell third-party goods competitive with the goods of Complainant. Such use, Complainant argues, is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial fair use. Instead, Respondent’s actions amount to passing off and possibly fraud, intended to deceive users for commercial gain. Finally, Complainant contends that Respondent registered and is using the Domain Names in bad faith. Complainant emphasizes that its AUTO VENTSHADE Mark and TRUXEDO Mark have been in use for many years (back to 1940 and 1999, respectively), long predating the Domain Name registrations in 2024. Given the fame and distinctiveness of these marks in the automotive accessories field, Complainant argues that Respondent undoubtedly knew of Complainant’s brands and deliberately targeted them. In terms of use, Complainant asserts that Respondent’s websites resolving from the Domain Names were set up to create confusion with Complainant for commercial gain, which is evidence of bad faith under the Policy paragraph 4(b)(iv). By impersonating Complainant’s official sites, Respondent intended to mislead consumers into believing they were dealing with Complainant or an authorized source. B. Respondent Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Even though Respondent has defaulted, paragraph 4 of the Policy requires that, in order to succeed in this UDRP proceeding, Complainant must still prove its assertions with evidence demonstrating: (i) each Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; (ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of each Domain Name; and (iii) each Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. Because of Respondent’s default, the Panel may accept as true the reasonable factual allegations stated within the Complaint and may draw appropriate inferences therefrom. See St. Tropez Acquisition Co. Limited v. AnonymousSpeech LLC and Global House Inc., WIPO Case No. D2009-1779; Bjorn Kassoe Andersen v. Direction International, WIPO Case No. D2007-0605; see also paragraph 5(f) of the Rules (“If a Respondent does not submit a response, in the absence of exceptional circumstances, the Panel shall decide the dispute based upon the complaint”). Having considered the Complaint, the Policy, the Rules, the Supplemental Rules, and applicable principles of law, the Panel’s findings on each of the above-cited elements are as follows. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. The standing (or threshold) test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition, (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.7. Complainant has demonstrated that it has rights in the AUTO VENTSHADE and TRUXEDO trademarks because Complainant’s wholly-owned subsidiaries hold valid U.S. trademark registrations for these marks, and Complainant (as the parent company) is entitled to rely on those trademark rights in this proceeding. See Grupo Televisa, S.A., Televisa, S.A. de C.V., Estrategia Televisa, S.A. de C.V., Videoserpel, Ltd. v. Party Night Inc., a/k/a Peter Carrington, WIPO Case No. D2003-0796 (“Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires, as one element to be proved, that the disputed domain name be identical or confusingly similar to a page 4 trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights. These words do not require that Complainant be the owner of the mark and would include, for example, a licensee of the mark.”); see also WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.4.1 and Yamaha Motor Corporation, U.S.A. v. Domain Admin, Hush Whois Protection Ltd., WIPO Case No. D2018-1359. Each of the Domain Names incorporates one of these marks in its entirety. The only difference between the Domain Names and the marks is the addition of the short word “my” as a prefix, along with the “.com” generic Top-Level Domain. It is well established that the inclusion of a term such as “my” does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the Policy. The test of confusing similarity simply compares the domain name (minus the generic Top-Level Domain) and the textual components of the complainant’s mark to assess whether the mark is recognizable within the domain. Here, “autoventshade” and “truxedo” are immediately apparent in the Domain Names, and they are identical to Complainant’s trademarks. The added word “my” does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element. See section 1.8 of the WIPO Overview 3.0. Accordingly, the Panel finds that <myautoventshade.com> is confusingly similar to the AUTO VENTSHADE Mark, and <mytruxedo.com> is confusingly similar to the TRUXEDO Mark. The first element of the Policy is satisfied. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Under the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(ii), Complainant has the burden of establishing that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names. Complainant needs to make a prima facie showing on this element, at which point the burden of production shifts to Respondent to present evidence that it has rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names. If Respondent has failed to do so, Complainant is deemed to have satisfied its burden under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. See Vicar Operating, Inc. v. Domains by Proxy, Inc. / Eklin Bot Systems, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2010-1141. In this case, Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its AUTO VENTSHADE Mark or TRUXEDO Mark or to register domain names incorporating these marks. There is no evidence that Respondent has been commonly known by either of the Domain Names. Respondent’s name is “Martin Filds.” Respondent has not rebutted Complainant’s prima facie showing and has not come forward with any relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names, such as those enumerated in the Policy 1 or otherwise. Instead, the record demonstrates that Respondent has engaged in conduct that negates any claim to legitimate interests. Specifically, Respondent has operated websites that impersonate Complainant by adopting Complainant’s marks and offering competitive, if not identical products, thereby misleading Internet users into believing there is an affiliation or authorization by Complainant. Such impersonation is inconsistent with bona fide use and constitutes clear evidence of an intent to capitalize on Complainant’s reputation. Panels have consistently held that impersonation of a complainant or its business through a domain name and associated website negates any claim to rights or legitimate interests. See On AG, On Clouds GmbH v. Nguyen Luu, Withheld for Privacy Purposes, Privacy service provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf, Vuong Hoang, AN NGUYEN, NEO CORP., and Ngoc Tam Nguyen, WIPO Case No. D2021-1714 (“a [disputed domain name’s] use cannot be deemed bona fide if the disputed domain names constitute trademark infringement”), citing Sai Machine Tools Pvt. Ltd. v. Mr. Sudhir Jaiswal, Shree Sai Extrusion Technik Pvt. Ltd, WIPO Case No. D2018-2560 (“bona fide use is predicated on 1 The Policy, paragraph 4(c), provides a non-exhaustive list of circumstances in which a respondent could demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name: “(i) before any notice to you of the dispute, your use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or (ii) you (as an individual, business, or other organization) have been commonly known by the domain name, even if you have acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or (iii) you are making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.” page 5 honest adoption of the name” and respondent failed to show such honest adoption; rather, respondent’s use was infringing and therefore not bona fide). Moreover, Respondent had the opportunity to demonstrate any rights or legitimate interests, but chose not to participate in these proceedings. Respondent has not provided any justification that could fall under the safe harbors of the Policy paragraph 4(c). For instance, there is no evidence of any legitimate business or brand of Respondent known as “myautoventshade” or “mytruxedo”. There is no evidence Respondent is a reseller making a fair use of the Domain Names under the Oki Data principles (which would require, among other things, selling only the trademarked goods and accurately disclosing the lack of affiliation). In fact, the evidence indicates Respondent did not make any such disclosure; rather, Respondent’s websites held themselves out as Complainant. Given these factors, the Panel finds that Complainant has established a prima facie case that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names, and Respondent has not rebutted that case. Therefore, the second element of the Policy is satisfied. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Under paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, Complainant must show that Respondent registered and is using the Domain Names in bad faith. A non-exhaustive list of factors constituting bad faith registration and use is set out in paragraph 4(b) of the Policy. Starting with the timing and circumstances of registration, the AUTO VENTSHADE Mark and the TRUXEDO Mark had been in longstanding use by Complainant’s group well before Respondent registered the Domain Names in 2024. AUTO VENTSHADE has been used since 1940 and TRUXEDO since 1999, and both are protected by trademark registrations. These marks are distinctive and associated exclusively with Complainant’s products. It is implausible that Respondent independently came up with the idea to register the Domain Names <myautoventshade.com> and <mytruxedo.com> without knowledge of Complainant. The most reasonable inference is that Respondent was well aware of Complainant’s brands and targeted them. Illustrating this best is the fact that TRUXEDO Mark is a coined word that is uniquely associated with Complainant’s subsidiary. The deliberate choice to combine “my” with Complainant’s trademarks shows an intent to create domain names that look like they belong to the brand owner (Complainant’s subsidiaries or their brands). Moreover, Respondent’s subsequent use of the Domain Names mimicking Complainant’s branding on the website strongly confirms that Respondent knew of Complainant’s trademarks and deliberately targeted Complainant. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.2.2. The Panel therefore finds that the Domain Names were chosen and registered in bad faith, with Complainant’s trademarks in mind Likewise, the manner in which Respondent has used the Domain Names leaves no doubt concerning bad faith. Under the Policy paragraph 4(b)(iv), there is bad faith when a respondent uses a domain name to intentionally attract Internet users to its site by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark for the respondent’s commercial gain. Respondent’s actions fit squarely into this scenario. By launching websites that masqueraded as Complainant’s own brand sites, Respondent clearly intended to confuse Internet users into believing they were on a site affiliated with Complainant. This likely would attract Complainant’s customers or potential customers, diverting them away from Complainant’s legitimate websites. Respondent presumably stood to gain commercially, either through sales of competing or counterfeit products or through some form of monetization of the traffic (even if it was just collecting advertising revenue or user data). The crucial point is that Respondent’s entire web presence under the Domain Names was predicated on impersonating Complainant and trading on the goodwill of Complainant’s trademarks. Such exploitation of Complainant’s mark to lure customers constitutes bad faith use. See On AG, On Clouds GmbH v. Nguyen Luu, Withheld for Privacy Purposes, Privacy service provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf, Vuong Hoang, AN NGUYEN, NEO CORP., and Ngoc Tam Nguyen, WIPO Case No. D2021-1714 (“the Panel’s finding not only that the Respondents are infringing the Complainants’ trademarks but also runs afoul of principles articulated in sections 2.4 and 2.5 (including subsections) of the WIPO Overview is dispositive of [the issue of bad faith]”). page 6 Considering all the above facts and circumstances, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the Domain Names in bad faith under the Policy paragraph 4(a)(iii). 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 Names <myautoventshade.com> and <mytruxedo.com> be transferred to Complainant. /John C McElwaine/ John C McElwaine Sole Panelist Date: February 5, 2026

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