Honda1.org

The timeline behind honda1.org

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.

DECISION American Honda Motor Co. Inc. v. org mail / mail Claim Number: FA2406002103111 PARTIES Complainant is American Honda Motor Co. Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Samantha Markley of Loza & Loza, LLP, California, USA. Respondent is org mail / mail ("Respondent"), California, USA. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <honda1.org>, registered with Squarespace Domains LLC. PANEL The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding. Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq. as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on June 20, 2024; Forum received payment on June 21, 2024. On June 21, 2024, Squarespace Domains LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <honda1.org> domain name is registered with Squarespace Domains LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Squarespace Domains LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Squarespace Domains LLC 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 June 24, 2024, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 15, 2024 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@honda1.org. Also on June 24, 2024, 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 July 16, 2024, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq. 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 i) Complainant is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Japanese corporation Honda Motor Co., Ltd., one of the world's leading automobile companies. Complainant was founded in 1959 as Honda Motor Co., Ltd.'s first overseas subsidiary. Complainant has the exclusive right to use and protect trademarks belonging to Honda Motor Co., Ltd. in the United States. Honda is one of the best-known and most well-respected companies on the planet. Honda Motor Co., Ltd. has rights in the HONDA mark, among others, based on registration of the mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") (e.g., Reg. No. 826,779, registered April 4, 1967). The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's HONDA mark as it incorporates the entire mark, merely adding the number 1 letter "h" and the ".org" generic top-level domain ("gTLD") to form the disputed domain name. ii) Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use the HONDA mark. Additionally, Respondent does not use the disputed domain for any bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use as the domain resolves to an inactive website. iii) Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent registered the disputed domain name decades after Complainant had commenced use of the HONDA mark and well after it had become well-known and incontestable in the United States. Respondent inactively holds the disputed domain name. Respondent's use of a confusingly similar disputed domain name, even with an inactive website, is evidence of bad faith use and registration. Respondent registered the disputed domain name with an intention to take unfair advantage of consumer confusion between Complainant's HONDA mark and the disputed domain name in an effort to draw Internet users to the disputed domain name's resolving website for commercial gain. B. Respondent Respondent did not submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS 1. The disputed domain name was registered on May 11, 2024. 2. Complainant has established rights in the HONDA mark based on its parent company Honda Motor Co., Ltd.'s registration of the mark with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 826,779, registered April 4, 1967). 3. The disputed domain name resolves to an inactive website. 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 Complainant asserts rights in the HONDA mark, among others, based on its parent company Honda Motor Co., Ltd.'s registration of the mark with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 826,779, registered April 4, 1967). Registration of a mark with the USPTO is a valid showing of rights in a mark. Since Complainant provides evidence of registration of the HONDA mark with the USPTO, the Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Complainant argues that the disputed domain name <honda1.org> is confusingly similar to Complainant's HONDA mark as it incorporates the entire mark, merely adding the number "1" and the ".org" generic top-level domain ("gTLD") to form the disputed domain name. Visually similar misspellings of a complainant's mark, achieved by replacing or adding a letter or number, along with the addition of a gTLD, are not sufficient to differentiate a disputed domain name from the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See additionally PathAdvantage Associated v. VistaPrint Technologies Ltd, FA 1625731 (Forum July 23, 2015) (holding that the <pathadvantages.com> domain name was confusingly similar to the PATHADVANTAGE trademark because the domain name "merely adds the letter's' to Complainant's mark"); see also Carahsoft Technology Corp. v. Fatkin Tdme, FA 1981718 (Forum Feb. 28, 2022) (holding that the domain name consists of a sign confusingly similar to the Complainant's CARAHSOFT mark merely transposing two letters, an 'a' and a 'h' and adding the gTLD ".com". The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's HONDA mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Rights or Legitimate Interests Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), then 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 argues that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name because Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use the HONDA mark. There is no evidence or reason to suggest Respondent is, in fact, commonly known by the disputed domain name. The Panel therefore finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). Additionally, Complainant argues that Respondent does not use the disputed domain for any bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use as the domain resolves to an inactive website. Failure to make active use of a disputed domain name indicates a respondent does not use the domain for a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See Morgan Stanley v. Francis Mccarthy / Baltec Marine Llc, FA 1785347 (Forum June 8, 2018) ("both Domain Names resolve to a web site that shows the words, 'Not Found, The requested URL / was not found on this server.' Inactive holding of a domain name does not qualify as a bona fide offering of goods or services within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or a legitimate non-commercial or fair use within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)."). Complainant provides a screenshot showing the disputed domain name resolves to an inactive website. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not using the domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). The Panel finds that Complainant has made out a prima facie case that arises from the considerations above. All of these matters go to make out the prima facie case against Respondent. As Respondent has not filed a Response or attempted by any other means to rebut the prima facie case against it, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Registration and Use in Bad Faith Complainant argues Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith since Respondent inactively holds it. The Panel recalls that Complainant provides a screenshot showing the disputed domain name resolves to an inactive website. The Panel agrees that the passive holding of a domain name does not necessarily circumvent a finding that the domain name is being used in bad faith within the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy. See Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No. D2000-0003 (finding that in considering whether the passive holding of a domain name, following a bad faith registration of it, satisfies the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(iii), the panel must give close attention to all the circumstances of the respondent's behavior, and a remedy can be obtained under the Policy only if those circumstances show that the respondent's passive holding amounts to acting in bad faith.) The Panel has considered the following specific circumstances of this case: i) Complainant is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Honda Motor Co., Ltd., a leading global automobile manufacturer based in Japan. Established in 1959, it was Honda's first overseas subsidiary. Honda is renowned and highly respected worldwide, enjoying a stellar reputation and consumer goodwill. Complainant's products are recognized as some of the best in the industry. For instance, Consumer Reports ranked the Complainant's Honda Insight seventh on its list of the top ten most reliable cars (published November 18, 2021). Additionally, U.S. News & World Report named Honda cars among the best car brands of 2022 in several categories, including "small cars," "hatchbacks," "compact cars," "midsize cars," and "hybrid cars"; and ii) Respondent has failed to provide any evidence of actual or intended good faith use of the disputed domain name. Considering all the above, the Panel concludes that Respondent's passive holding of the disputed domain name constitutes bad faith registration and use under Policy, paragraph 4(a)(iii), and that Respondent is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. 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 <honda1.org> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq., Panelist Dated: July 16, 2024 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.