The-superchips.com

The timeline behind the-superchips.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.

NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM DECISION Holley Performance Products Inc. and Powerteq LLC v. Qu Qiong Yao Claim Number: FA2502002141957 PARTIES Complainant is Holley Performance Products Inc. and Powerteq LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Joshua M. Dalton of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Massachusetts, USA. Respondent is Qu Qiong Yao ("Respondent"), China. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <the-superchips.com> ('the Domain Name'), registered with eName Technology Co., Ltd. PANEL The undersigned certifies that they have acted independently and impartially and to the best of their knowledge have no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding. Dawn Osborne as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on February 25, 2025; Forum received payment on February 25, 2025. On February 25, 2025, eName Technology Co., Ltd. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <the-superchips.com> Domain Name is registered with eName Technology Co., Ltd. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. eName Technology Co., Ltd. has verified that Respondent is bound by the eName Technology Co., Ltd. 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 February 28, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Chinese and English Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 20, 2025 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@the-superchips.com. Also on February 28, 2025, the Chinese and English 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 in Chinese and English. On March 21, 2025 pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Dawn Osborne 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. PRELIMINARY ISSUE: MULTIPLE COMPLAINANTS In the instant proceedings, there are two Complainants. Paragraph 3(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") provides that "[a]ny person or entity may initiate an administrative proceeding by submitting a complaint." Forum's Supplemental Rule 1(e) defines "The Party Initiating a Complaint Concerning a Domain Name Registration" as a "single person or entity claiming to have rights in the domain name, or multiple persons or entities who have a sufficient nexus who can each claim to have rights to all domain names listed in the Complaint." The Panel determines there is sufficient nexus in this case namely the relationship of parent company and wholly owned subsidiary and refers to them hereafter as the Complainant. PRELIMINARY ISSUE: LANGUAGE OF PROCEEDINGS Bearing in mind that the Domain Name points to a commercial site in English, pursuant to UDRP Rule 11 (a) the Panel finds that persuasive evidence has been adduced by Complainant to suggest the likely possibility that the Respondent is conversant and proficient in the English language and the Panel decides that the proceedings should be in English. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant The Complainant is the owner of the mark SUPERCHIPS registered, inter alia, in the USA for handheld computers for automotive purposes since 2007 with first use recorded as 1998. The Domain Name registered in 2024 is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trade mark adding the generic word 'the', a hyphen, and the gTLD .com none of which prevents said confusing similarity. The Respondent does not have rights or a legitimate interest in the Domain Name, is not commonly known by it and has not been authorised by the Complainant. The Domain Name has been used for a site impersonating the Complainant using the Complainant's SUPERCHIPS Mark in its logo form as a masthead. It also (1) uses another of the Complainant's marks FLASHPAQ; (2) copies or closely mimics product descriptions from the Complainant's website and uses the Complainant's product images without permission; (3) falsely claims to be the site of the genuine Superchips brand ("Superchips traces its roots back to 1983 in Buckinghamshire, England. Back then we were just a handful of die-hard enthusiasts, determined to squeeze every last ounce of performance from our hot rods."); and (4) falsely claims a direct relationship with the Complainant ("Superchips joined the prestigious Holley family of brands in 2015."). The Respondent's website also advertises and promotes links to SUPERCHIPS products resold through Amazon. It states that it is "a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com." The Respondent's website therefore profits from its infringing use of the Complainant's SUPERCHIPS mark by receiving commissions for sales made by consumers deceived into clicking the Amazon listings advertised on the Respondent's web site under the mistaken belief that it is the authentic source for the SUPERCHIPS products advertised. This is impersonation and passing off and does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate non commercial or fair use. It is registration and use in opportunistic bad faith confusing Internet users for commercial gain in actual knowledge of the Complainant's rights. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS The Complainant is the owner of the mark SUPERCHIPS registered, inter alia, in the USA for handheld computers for automotive purposes since 2007 with first use recorded as 1998. The Domain Name registered in 2024 has been used for a site impersonating the Complainant using the Complainant's SUPERCHIPS Mark in its logo form as a masthead, misleading wording and images copied from the Complainant without permission for commercial gain. 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 The Domain Name consists of the Complainant's SUPERCHIPS mark (which is registered, inter alia, in the USA for handheld computers for automotive purposes since 2007 with first use recorded as 1998), a hyphen, the generic term 'the' and the gTLD .com. Previous panels have found confusing similarity when a respondent merely adds a generic term to a Complainant's mark. See PG&E Corp. v Anderson, D2000-1264 (WIPO Nov. 22, 2000) (finding that respondent does not by adding common descriptive or generic terms create new or different marks nor does it alter the underlying mark held by the Complainant). The Panel agrees that the addition of the generic term 'the' does not prevent confusing similarity between the Domain Name and the Complainant's trade mark pursuant to the Policy. The addition of a hyphen to a mark does not distinguish the disputed domain name from the mark incorporated therein per Policy 4(a)(i). See ADP, LLC. v. Ella Magal, FA 1773958 (Forum Aug. 2, 2017) ("Respondent's <workforce-now.com> domain name appropriates the dominant portion of Complainant's ADP WORKFORCE NOW mark and adds a hyphen and the gTLD ".com." These changes do not sufficiently distinguish the disputed domain name from the ADP WORKFORCE NOW mark."). The addition of the gTLD .com does not serve to distinguish a domain name from a complainant's mark. See Red Hat Inc v Haecke, FA 726010 (Forum July 24, 2006) (concluding that the redhat.org domain name is identical to the complainant's red hat mark because the mere addition of the gTLD was insufficient to differentiate the disputed domain name from the mark). Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to a registered mark in which the Complainant has rights. As such the Panel holds that Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been satisfied. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Complainant has not authorised the use of its mark. There is no evidence or reason to suggest the Respondent is, in fact, commonly known by the Domain Name. See Alaska Air Group, Inc. and its subsidiary, Alaska Airlines v. Song Bin, FA 1574905 (Forum Sept. 17, 2014) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name as demonstrated by the WHOIS information and based on the fact that the complainant had not licensed or authorized the respondent to use its ALASKA AIRLINES mark). The use of the site is commercial and so is not legitimate non commercial fair use. It it is clear from the evidence that the Respondent has used the site attached to the Domain Name to offer competing products and services which are not connected with the Complainant and to impersonate the Complainant with use of the Complainant's SUPERCHIPS mark in its logo form as a masthead, confusing wording and images belonging to the Complainant. See Am. Intl Group Inc v Benjamin, FA 944242 (Forum May 11, 2007) (finding that the Respondent's use of a confusingly similar domain name to advertise real estate services which competed with the Complainant's business did not constitute a bona fide use of goods and services.) See iFinex Inc. v Yuri Heifetz/Genie-Solution, FA 1789385 (Forum July 9, 2018) (holding that the respondent's mimicking the complainant in order to cause existing or potential customers of the complainant to believe they are dealing with the complainant is prima facie evidence of the respondent's lack of rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name). The Respondent has not answered the Complaint or rebutted the prima facie case evidenced by the Complainant as set out herein. As such the Panelist finds that the Respondent does not have rights or a legitimate interest in the Domain Name and that the Complainant has satisfied the second limb of the Policy. Registration and Use in Bad Faith In the opinion of the panelist the use made of the Domain Name in relation to the Respondent's site is confusing and disruptive in that visitors to the site might reasonably believe it is connected to or approved by the Complainant as it uses the Complainant's mark in its logo form as a masthead, uses misleading wording and copies the Complainant's images without permission to offer competing products and services which are not connected with the Complainant. The copying of the Complainant's images and logo shows actual knowledge of the Complainant and its rights, business and services. Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trade mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the web site or services offered on it likely to disrupt the business of the Complainant. The site appears to be gaining revenue by receiving commissions for sales made by consumers deceived into clicking the Amazon listings advertised on the Respondent's web site under the mistaken belief that the Respondent's website is the authentic source for the SUPERCHIPS products advertised. See Bittrex, Inc. v. Wuxi Yilian LLC, FA 1760517 (Forum Dec. 27, 2017) (finding bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where Respondent registered and uses the <lbittrex.com> domain name in bad faith by directing Internet users to a website that purports to be the Complainant's web site in order to confuse users into believing that Respondent is Complainant, or is otherwise affiliated or associated with Complainant). See Asbury Auto Group Inc v Tex. Int'l Prop Assocs FA 958542 (Forum May 29, 2007) finding that the respondent's use of the disputed domain name to advertise car dealerships that competed with the complainant's business would likely lead to confusion amongst Internet users as to the sponsorship or affiliation of those competing dealerships and was therefore evidence of bad faith and use). See Allianz of AM. Corp v Bond, FA 680624 (Forum June 2, 2006) (finding bad faith registration and use where the respondent was diverting Internet users searching for the complainant to its own website). As such, the Panelist believes that the Complainant has made out its case that the Domain Name was registered and used in bad faith and has satisfied the third limb of the Policy under Paragraphs 4(b)(iii) and (iv). 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 <the-superchips.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Dawn Osborne, Panelist Dated: March 21, 2025 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.