Parkplaceacura.com

The timeline behind parkplaceacura.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.

DECISION American Honda Motor Co., Inc. v. Steve Champion Claim Number: FA2504002148682 PARTIES Complainant is American Honda Motor Co., Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Samantha Markley of Loza & Loza, LLP, California, USA. Respondent is Steve Champion ("Respondent"), represented by John G. Baker, Texas, USA. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <parkplaceacura.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC. 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. Georges Nahitchevansky as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on April 3, 2025; Forum received payment on April 3, 2025. On April 7, 2025, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <parkplaceacura.com> domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GoDaddy.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, 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 April 8, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of April 28, 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@parkplaceacura.com. Also on April 8, 2025, 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. A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on April 28, 2025. On April 29, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Georges Nahitchevansky 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. RELIEF SOUGHT Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant Complainant states that it is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Japanese corporation Honda Motor Co., Ltd. and that it has the exclusive right to use and protect trademarks belonging to Honda Motor Co., Ltd. in the United States. Since the mid-1980s, Complainant has sold ACURA branded luxury automobiles in the United States. Through its parent Honda Motor Co., LTD, Complainant has rights in and to the ACURA mark which has been registered in the United States. These include registrations for ACURA as a word mark (Registration Nos. 1,407,602, 1,644,580 and 4,414,928), the earliest of which issued to registration on September 2, 1986, and ACURA with a Design (Registration Nos. 2,514,550 and 2,490,387), the earliest of which issued to registration on September 18, 2001. Complainant contends that the ACURA mark is a well-known brand across the globe and that ACURA is considered to be a leader in the premium automobile sector. In that regard, Complainant notes that in 2020, 136,982 ACURA cars were sold in the United States alone and in 2024, 132,267 ACURA cares were sold in the United States alone. Complainant contends that Respondent registered the disputed domain on July 12, 2022 and that at some point thereafter used it as a redirect to a Better Business Bureau web page for the business profile of a car dealer, "Park Place Motorcars Dallas." Currently, the disputed domain name resolves to a GoDaddy landing page with click through links for such offerings as "Car Rental Dallas," "Park Apartments," and "Rent Car." Complainant argues that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's ACURA mark as it incorporates the mark in its entirety, merely adding the non-distinguishing geographical descriptive term "Park Place." Complainant cites prior UDRP cases to support its contentions. Complainant asserts that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name as Respondent (i) is not authorized by or otherwise affiliated with Complainant to use the ACURA mark, (ii) is not commonly known by the ACURA mark, (ii) has not made any active bona fide offering of goods or service and has simply used the disputed domain name as a redirect to a Better Business Bureau web page and now a landing page. Complainant cites prior UDRP cases to support its contentions. Lastly, Complainant asserts that Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith because Respondent was likely aware of the ACURA mark given its notoriety and likely did so "in an effort to draw Internet users to the domain name PAKPLACEACURA.COM for commercial gain." Complainant further contends that Respondent's bad faith is established by Respondent's use of the disputed domain name as a redirect to a Better Business Bureau web page. Complainant cites prior UDRP cases to support its contentions. B. Respondent Respondent rejects Complainant's contentions. Respondent asserts that he registered the disputed domain with a "good faith intent to develop a community-focused website for Acura enthusiast, particularly employees and clients of the Park Place dealership network." Respondent further asserts that his daughter had been employed at the Park Place Acura dealership for many years which gave rise to a "natural and legitimate interest in supporting a localized community of Acura owners." Respondent admits that the disputed domain name was largely inactive in the early years of its registration, while Respondent's daughter was "gaining training and experience in domain management and online marketing to prepare for the site's development." Respondent notes that while the disputed domain name temporarily redirected to a Better Business Bureau web page, Respondent did not create or control the content on that web page. Respondent also notes that a domain name broker approached Respondent on March 5, 2025 and offered $5,000 for the disputed domain name which Respondent declined. But then on April 3, 2025, Complainant initiated the UDRP. Respondent is silent on whether the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the ACURA mark. Respondent argues that he has legitimate interest in the disputed domain name as he intended to use it to build a community-centered platform focused on Acura owners associated with the Park Place dealership network. Respondent also maintains that there is no evidence that he acted in bad faith given his intent to build a community-centered platform, and given that he never attempted to sell the disputed domain name and never made any deceptive use of the disputed domain name. With regard to the redirect to the Better Business Bureau web page, Respondent contends that bad faith cannot be found as he was not responsible for the content that appeared on that web page. Respondent also argues that because there are several independent online communities or organizations, as well as independent dealerships, that use the term "Acura" descriptively in their domain names, Complainant has engaged in selective enforcement of its ACURA mark and has initiated the instant proceeding "opportunistically, rather than to prevent genuine confusion." Lastly, Respondent requests that the Panel make a finding of reverse domain name hijacking against Complainant. C. Complainant 's Additional Unsolicited Submission Complainant filed an additional unsolicited submission on May 1, 2025. While unsolicited submissions are generally discouraged, unless specifically requested by a Panel, a party submitting such needs to clearly show the relevance of such and why it was unable to provide the information contained therein in its complaint. Here, Complainant fails to make such a showing and mostly reargues its case with many of the same points previously raised. As it is within the Panel's discretion to accept or reject such unsolicited submissions pursuant to Paragraph 10 of the UDRP Rules, the Panel rejects Complainant's additional submission with the narrow exception that the Panel will accept that portion of Complainant's submission that concerns Respondent's allegations that a domain name broker contacted Respondent to purchase the disputed domain name for $5,000 USD. Complainant contends that it never made that offer and that the offer was not made on Complainant's behalf. FINDINGS Complainant holds trademark rights for the ACURA mark. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's ACURA mark. Complainant has established that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and that Respondent registered and has used the domain name in bad faith. 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. Identical and/or Confusingly Similar The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant's ACURA mark in its entirety, and merely adds the geographically descriptive term "Park Place" at the head of the disputed domain name along with the ".com" gTLD. Under Paragraph 4(a)(i), adding a gTLD and a geographically descriptive term is generally insufficient in differentiating a disputed domain name from the mark it incorporates. See Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) ("Where a relevant trademark is recognizable within a disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element."); see also Vanguard Group Inc. v. Proven Fin. Solutions, FA 572937 (Forum Nov. 18, 2005) (holding that the addition of both the word "advisors" and the gTLD ".com" did not sufficiently alter the disputed domain name to negate a finding of confusing similarity under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)). Given that the first element is essentially a standing requirement, because Complainant's claimed mark is fully incorporated and clearly recognizable at the head of the disputed domain name, and Respondent does not contend otherwise, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark for purposes of Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. Rights or Legitimate Interests Complainant alleges that Respondent holds no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. In order for Complainant to succeed under this element, it must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, and then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See 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"); see also Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm't Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006) Here, there is no dispute that Respondent has no license or authorization from Complainant to use the ACURA mark. Moreover, it is clear that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain or by the ACURA name mark. Respondent claims that he has a legitimate interest in the disputed domain name because he intended to use the disputed domain name to build a community centered platform focused on Acura owners associated with the Park Place dealership network. Respondent further claims that although the disputed domain name was inactive during the early years of registration, Respondent was "engaged in limited technical testing and domain redirection settings provided by the registrar (GoDaddy) as part of preparation efforts." While Respondent makes these claims, Respondent has provided no evidence to support such apart from a declaration by Respondent that repeats these claims. What is lacking is anything beyond unilateral and conclusory assertions by Respondent that would tend to show or support that Respondent was actively creating such a claimed platform, or engaged in so called technical testing of the disputed domain name since registering the disputed domain name in July 2022. To be sure, conclusory allegations or assertions that are unsubstantiated with specific evidence are entitled to little or no weight. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition ("WIPO Overview 3.0") at sections 1.3, 2.2, 3.1 and 4.2. But beyond the evidentiary lacunes in Respondent's case, Respondent's own actions undermine a claim of having a legitimate interest in the disputed domain name. To begin, Respondent chose to register a domain name that on its face is likely to be seen by consumers as suggesting a connection with Complainant and its well-known ACURA mark, or perhaps an authorized dealership for ACURA cars. As such, it carries a high degree of implied affiliation and puts into question the legitimacy of Respondent's actions. Respondent attempts to overcome the import of the disputed domain name's implied affiliation by arguing that because there are other independent websites for online communities or dealerships that use the ACURA mark he has a nominative fair use right to register and use the disputed domain name. Respondent's argument, however, is misplaced. First, there is no evidence in the record regarding these third party uses and whether or not they are authorized, licensed, endorsed by or affiliated with Complainant or that Complainant even knows about these uses. Second, and more importantly, unlike situations where a disputed domain name is shown with evidence to be used for an arguably bona fide offering of goods or service or for a genuine non-commercial fair use, Respondent in the instant case has made no use whatsoever of the disputed domain name apart from using it at some point to attract and redirect web traffic to a Better Business Bureau web page concerning a car dealer in Dallas, Texas using the name Park Place Motorcars. While Respondent claims he did not control or create the content on that web page, Respondent actively chose to use the disputed domain name that features the ACURA mark to attract and redirect web users to that web page which contained complaints about an unrelated car dealer and its activities. Lastly, Respondent has provided no evidence to show that he made any preparations or did anything concrete over the course of almost three years for his claimed community centered platform, thereby suggesting that this may be an after the fact justification by Respondent for registering the disputed domain name. In all, Respondent has failed to show that he had a legitimate interest in the disputed domain name that on its face is likely to be seen as being sponsored, authorized or endorsed by Complainant. Based on the available record, the Panel finds the second element of the Policy has been established in Complainant's favor. Registration and Use in Bad Faith There is no dispute that at the time of the registration of the disputed domain name in July 2022 Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's ACURA mark. Respondent readily admits to having registered the disputed domain name containing the ACURA mark for Respondent's alleged community-focused website for ACURA enthusiasts and notes that his daughter worked at an ACURA dealership. As already noted, Respondent has provided no evidence beyond a declaration from Respondent in which Respondent makes the unsubstantiated claim of having a good faith intent in registering the disputed domain name for his claimed community-focused website. The lack of any evidence tending to substantiate Respondents' assertions is telling, particularly as Respondent has held the disputed domain name for almost three years and the only uses of the disputed domain name before the Panel was as a redirect to a Better Business Bureau web page and currently a GoDaddy landing page. Given Respondent's failure to provide any evidence supporting his claimed intention, the Panel views the explanation provided for registering a domain name based on the ACURA mark as likely being pretextual in nature. Simply put, the evidence before the Panel makes it more likely than not that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith to opportunistically take advantage of Complainant's rights in its ACURA trademark. As such, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith pursuant to Paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. REVERSE DOMAIN NAME HIJACKING Given that Complainant has prevailed in this proceeding, Respondent's request for a finding of reverse domain name hijacking does not need to addressed and is denied. 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 <parkplaceacura.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant Georges Nahitchevansky, Panelist Dated: May 10, 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.