Pedalmax.com

The timeline behind pedalmax.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.

ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Christopher Johnson v. Jesse Bushong Case No. D2026-1495 1. The Parties The Complainant is Christopher Johnson, United States of America (“United States”), self-represented. The Respondent is Jesse Bushong, United States. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <pedalmax.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 April 8, 2026. On April 9, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On April 10, 2026, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent (Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on April 10, 2026, 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 amendment to the Complaint on April 12, 2026. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to 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 the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on April 16, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was May 6, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on May 18, 2026. The Center appointed W. Scott Blackmer as the sole panelist in this matter on May 21, 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. page 2 4. Factual Background The Complainant is an individual residing in the State of Florida, United States. The Complainant holds United States Trademark Registration Number 4880735 for the standard character mark PEDALMAX (registered on January 5, 2016) in international class 9, claiming first use in commerce on January 1, 2012, for electronic control units for motor vehicle ignition systems. These are marketed through a specialty auto parts website at “www.jmschip.com”, which advertises PEDALMAX products on its homepage and has a PEDALMAX page with a catalogue of PEDALMAX branded products. The “About Us” page of the JMSchip website identifies the Complainant as the CEO of the JMS Group. The Complainant attaches screenshots showing that the online JMSchip catalog has featured PEDALMAX products since at least 2014, featuring a red and black color scheme. The disputed domain name was created on May 13, 2015, and is registered to the Respondent Jesse Bushong, listing a postal address in the State of Georgia, United States and a contact email address at [xxx]@droneguts.com, using a domain name that resolves to the “Drone Guts Advanced Drone Systems” website advertising drone products from a company in the State of Washington, United States. At the time of this Decision, the disputed domain name does not resolve to an active website. At the time the Complaint was filed, the disputed domain name resolved to a website (the “Respondent’s former website”) with a red and black color scheme advertising “Pedal Max” vehicle throttle response controllers designed for a wide range of automobiles and trucks, purportedly available for purchase and shipping through the website. Based on the descriptions of functionality and utility, the products appear to overlap those offered by the Complainant, although the available screenshots do not include sufficient details to ascertain whether the Respondent is offering its own original products or reselling (or copying) JMSchip products as the Complainant suggests. The Respondent’s former website included no disclaimer of affiliation with the Complainant or JMSchip. The Panel notes that the Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine has archived screenshots of the Respondent’s former website from August 2024 through March 2026; before that, the disputed domain name does not appear to have been in active use. 1 Thus, it is likely that the Respondent did not acquire the disputed domain name until 2024. The Respondent’s former website published contact details including an address in Columbus, Georgia, United States, as well as links to social media sites. The Panel notes that the online database of the Georgia Corporations Division lists a domestic corporation named PedalMax, Inc., registered on April 2, 2026, with a postal address in Columbus, Georgia and a registered agent with the same family name and residential address as the Respondent. Therefore, it is probable that the Respondent, who has not replied to communications or submitted a Response in this proceeding, is associated both with PedalMax, Inc. and the Respondent’s former website. The Complainant sent a cease and desist letter to the Respondent on March 19, 2026, and notified the Registrar and host of the Respondent’s former website of the alleged trademark infringement in April. Having purportedly received no reply from the Respondent, this proceeding followed. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the disputed domain name. 1 Noting the general powers of a panel articulated in paragraphs 10 and 12 of the Rules, it is commonly accepted that a panel may undertake limited factual research into matters of public record, as the Panel has done in these proceedings. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Select UDRP Questions (“WIPO Overview 3.1”), section 4.8. page 3 Notably, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical to his registered PEDALMAX trademark, and that the Respondent lacks permission to use the mark or other rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Instead, the Complainant asserts, the Respondent is using the disputed domain name to impersonate the Complainant and offer products under an identical name, which does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services. The Complainant contends that this conduct constitutes bad faith under the Policy, as the Complainant’s trademark rights predate the Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name and the Respondent is offering similar products under an identical name, presenting itself as an official source of PEDALMAX products. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings 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 the Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.7. The Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trademark or service mark (the registered PEDALMAX word mark) for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.2.1. The entirety of the mark is reproduced within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is identical to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.7. For completeness, the Panel also finds that the Complainant has established unregistered trademark rights in the mark PEDALMAX since at least 2014 for purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.3. The Panel finds the first element of the Policy has been established. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances in which the Respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name. Although the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, panels have recognized that proving that a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the difficult task of “proving a negative”, requiring information that is often primarily within the knowledge or control of the respondent. As such, where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name (although the burden of proof always remains on the complainant). If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.1. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent has not rebutted the Complainant’s prima facie showing and has not come forward with any relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name such as those enumerated in the page 4 Policy or otherwise. As recounted above, the Panel finds historical screenshots of a Pedal Max website that was published from August 2024 through March 2026, advertising a line of vehicle ignition controller products described similarly to the Complainant’s PEDALMAX products, with the same color scheme as the Complainant’s website. The Panel also finds, as noted above, that a person likely connected to the Respondent registered a company with a corresponding name a few weeks after the Complainant sent a cease and desist letter to the Respondent (and therefore after this dispute arose). But the Respondent has not come forward in this proceeding with evidence to establish that it was commonly known by a corresponding name or was actually doing business through the website, or that this was a business that would be deemed a “bona fide” offering of goods and services under the Policy, paragraph 4(c)(ii), as opposed to an illegitimate exploitation of the Complainant’s trademark, as discussed more fully in the following section on bad faith. Nor has the Respondent established its bona fides as a reseller or distributor making fair use of the mark. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.8. The Panel finds the second element of the Policy has been established. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel notes that, for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, paragraph 4(b) of the Policy establishes circumstances, in particular, but without limitation, that, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith. In the present case, as discussed above, the evidence points toward the likelihood that the Respondent acquired the disputed domain name in 2024, when it began to be used for the Respondent’s former website after years of apparent inactivity. The Panel finds on the balance of probabilities that the Respondent was likely aware of the Complainant and its PEDALMAX mark at that time and intended to target the mark. Even if the Respondent is the original registrant of the disputed domain name since 2015, the Panel finds that the Complainant has trademark rights under the Policy that predate this registration. The disputed domain name is identical to a distinctive mark that was long-established by then in a niche automotive parts market, and the Respondent used the disputed domain name for a website advertising the same or competing products as the Complainant’s PEDALMAX branded products. Moreover, the Panel notes that an Internet search on the term “pedalmax” from a browser located in the United States prominently generates search results referring to the Complainant’s JMS PEDALMAX offerings. It is improbable that the Respondent was unaware of the Complainant’s PEDALMAX products in the same specialty products market, and the Respondent has not come forward to offer another explanation for its conduct. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the circumstances in this case fit the example of bad faith found in the Policy, paragraph 4(b)(iv), intentionally attempting to attract Internet users to a site for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark. This applies whether the Respondent was using the disputed domain name to sell its own products or to copy or resell the Complainant’s, as the Respondent’s former website created a false impression of association with the Complainant. The Panel finds that the Complainant has established the third element 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 disputed domain name <pedalmax.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /W. Scott Blackmer/ W. Scott Blackmer Sole Panelist Date: June 1, 2026

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