Autoholley.com

The timeline behind autoholley.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 Holley Performance Products Inc. v. Yang Fengyu Claim Number: FA2506002162853 PARTIES Complainant is Holley Performance Products Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Joshua M. Dalton of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Massachusetts, USA. Respondent is Yang Fengyu ("Respondent"), China. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <autoholley.com>, registered with Gname.com Pte. Ltd. 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. James Bridgeman SC as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on June 26, 2025; Forum received payment on June 26, 2025. On June 26, 2025, Gname.com Pte. Ltd. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <autoholley.com> domain name is registered with Gname.com Pte. Ltd. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Gname.com Pte. Ltd. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Gname.com Pte. 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 June 27, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Chinese and English Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 17, 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@autoholley.com. Also on June 27, 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 July 18, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed James Bridgeman SC 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 disputed domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. PRELIMINARY ISSUE: LANGUAGE OF PROCEEDING Rule 11(a) of the Rules states that the default language of the administrative proceeding is the language of the domain name registration agreement. However, the Panel has discretion to determine otherwise, considering fairness, parties' language proficiency, cost, and potential delays due to translation. The Registrar has confirmed that the language of the Registration Agreement is Chinese. The Complainant requests that the language of the proceeding should be English for the following reasons: · the disputed domain name <autoholley.com> is in English; · the website to which the disputed domain name resolves to is solely in the English language; · the Registrar's Terms of Service are available in English at the Registrar's website; · in recent disputes involving the Registrar Gname.com Pte. Ltd., WIPO panels have exercised their discretion in finding that the proceedings should be held in English, citing Equinor ASA v. Sophie and equinor equinor, WIPO Case No. DCC2024-0028; Benda Bili v. zhu yong hua, WIPO Case No. D2023-4404; Daniel Austin Green v. peng gao qi, WIPO Case No. D2023-2376; · Complainant, based in the United States, is unable to communicate in Chinese and would be put to great expense and inconvenience to have to translate the Complaint and its evidence to Chinese, which would cause undue delay to the proceeding. Having considered the record, and noting that · the disputed domain name is expressed in the English language with Latin characters; · the entire content on the website to which the disputed domain name resolves a screen capture of which has been submitted in an annex to the Complaint by Complainant is in the English language; · all goods purported to be offered by Respondent on the website to which the disputed domain name resolves are priced in dollars; · there is no Chinese language content whatsoever on the website to which the disputed domain name resolves; · on June 27, 2025, Written Notice of the Complaint, in both the Chinese and English languages was transmitted to Respondent via post and fax, and when Respondent failed to file a Response, Forum sent a notice of Respondent Default in both the Chinese and English languages, and Respondent failed to file a Response; · as is decided below, Respondent is using the disputed domain name as the address of an English language website to target the goodwill and reputation of Complainant which is based in the State of Kentucky, United States of America, and which has no connection with the PRC or the Chinese language, this Panel finds that on the balance of probabilities Respondent is proficient in the English language, and Complainant would be greatly prejudiced in terms of language proficiency, cost, and potential delays due to translations, if the Panel did not exercise the discretion allowed in Rule 11(a) to direct that this proceeding progress in the English language. This Panel directs therefore, exercising its discretion, that the Complaint, as amended, which was filed in the English language is admitted, and this proceeding is allowed to continue in the English language. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant Complainant claims rights in the HOLLEY trademark based on its ownership of the portfolio of registrations described below and extensive use of the mark in its business as a manufacturer of automotive aftermarket products. Complainant and its predecessors in title have since, 1905 continuously used the HOLLEY trademark in the United States in connection with carburetors, fuel controls, fuel pumps, fuel pump pressure regulators, fuel conduits, fuel filters, and parts thereof for engines, among other related goods and services. Additionally, since at least as early as 1997, as shown in a screen capture from Archive.org which is exhibited in an annex to the Complaint, Complainant has continuously used its HOLLEY mark in connection with its website at <holley.com> that offers its automotive products to the public. Complainant firstly argues that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the HOLLEY mark in which Complainant has rights because it contains Complainant's mark in its entirety and differs only from the mark by the addition of the descriptive, generic term "auto". Complainant submits that the generic Top-Level Domain ("gTLD") extension <.com> is irrelevant for the purposes of making the comparison under the Policy, citing Trip Network Inc. v. Alviera, FA 914943 (Forum Mar. 27, 2007) (concluding that the affixation of a gTLD to a domain name is irrelevant to a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis). Complainant secondly argues that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name arguing that the disputed domain name includes Complainant's entire mark; Complainant has made prior use of the mark; the parties never had a business relationship; there is also no evidence that Respondent is or was commonly known as "holley" before it registered the disputed domain name; the WHOIS information and other information in the record do not reflect prior use of the name by Respondent; Complainant has never authorized anyone associated with the disputed domain name to use Complainant's mark as a domain name; to the best of Complainant's knowledge, Respondent has not used or engaged in any demonstrable preparations to use the disputed domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; Complainant is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the Complainant's HOLLEY mark. Thirdly Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith arguing that:- Respondent's bad faith is readily established by its offering what appears to be Complainant's products on a fraudulent website purporting to be Complainant's legitimate online retail store website in a plain attempt to steal personal and financial information from unsuspecting consumers. The disputed domain name has resolved to a website displaying Complainant's proprietary product images and prominently featuring Complainant's Mark to market and advertise the purported sale of Complainant's legitimate products at reduced prices, further evidencing the registrant's fraudulent scheme to impersonate Complainant. There is no reason why the registrant of the disputed domain name would generate the disputed domain name that includes the entirety of Complainant's HOLLEY trademark and cause it to resolve to a website purporting to be Complainant, other than to impersonate Complainant and to glean personal information from individuals looking to purchase Complainant's products sold under Complainant's mark. Respondent has plainly used the disputed domain name to impersonate Complainant and mislead the public into thinking they are shopping on Complainant's legitimate website to ultimately obtain the vulnerable consumers' personal and financial information. Accordingly, Respondent has plainly used the disputed domain name to mislead the public in an effort to perpetuate fraud. Complainant adds that the registration and use of the disputed domain name in connection with a fraudulent scheme constitutes bad faith under the Policy, citing for example Guess? IP Holder L.P. and Guess?, Inc. v. Client Care / Web Commerce Communications Limited, FA2312002076191 (Forum Jan. 19, 2024) ("The uncontested evidence is that the Disputed Domain Names each resolve to an almost identical website which presents itself as being that of Complainants, mimicking Complainants' own website. . . the impersonation of Complainant and unauthorized use of Complainant's copyright material is sufficient [to] establish that the Disputed Domain Names are each being used in bad faith."). It is clear from Respondent's registration and use of the disputed domain name in this manner, that Respondent was well aware of Complainant before capitalizing on Complainant's goodwill and to improperly exploit Complainant's HOLLEY mark, rather than for some benign reason, citing Bridgewater Associates, LP v. Safe Haveen, FA2404002092263 (Forum May 2, 2024) ("While constructive knowledge is insufficient for finding of bad faith, per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) actual knowledge of a complainant's trademark rights is sufficient to establish bad faith and may be demonstrated by the respondent's use of the disputed domain name to impersonate complainant."). Complainant further argues that Respondent has used a privacy protection service to register the disputed domain name which includes the entirety of Complainant's federally registered HOLLEY mark which supports a finding of bad faith registration and use, citing the decision in CommScope, Inc. of North Carolina v. Domain Administrator, FA2204001990945 (Forum May 4, 2022) (finding bad faith in part because the respondent "availed [itself] of a privacy service to conceal his or her identity on the published Whois, and in fact did not provide any name when registering the disputed domain name but instead gave his or her name as 'Domain Administrator.'"). B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant is a manufacturer of automotive aftermarket products using the HOLLEY mark for which it holds a portfolio of trademark registrations including · United States registered trademark HOLLEY, registration number 188,941 registered by Complainant's predecessor in title Holley Carburetor Company of Detroit, Michigan, on September 9, 1924 for goods being "carburetors for explosive engines, in (United States) Class 23, Cutlery, machinery and tools, and parts thereof"; · United States registered trademark HOLLEY, registration number 1,021,903, registered on the Principal Register on October 7, 1975 for goods in international class 7; · United States registered trademark HOLLEY, registration number 1,062,188 registered on the Principal Register on March 29, 1977 for goods in international class 12. Complainant has an established Internet presence and has maintained a website at <holley.com> since at least December 12, 1997. The disputed domain name was registered on November 5, 2022 and resolves to a website that purports to offer Complainant's goods for sale at very large discounts. There is no information available about Respondent except for that provided in the Complaint as amended, the Registrar's WhoIs for the disputed domain name and the information provided by the Registrar in response to the request by Forum for details of the registration of the disputed domain name for the purposes of this proceeding. 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 has provided uncontested evidence that it has rights in the HOLLEY mark established by its ownership of the trademark and service mark registrations described above and has produced evidence of its continuous use of the mark on its website at <holley.com> since at least December 12, 1997. The disputed domain name <autoholley.com> consists of Complainant's HOLLEY mark in its entirety preceded by the element "auto" the generic Top-Level Domain ("gTLD") extension <.com>. It is well established that it is sufficient for a complainant to show that, as in the present case, the trademark upon which it relies is contained in its entirety within the domain name at issue to satisfy the first element of the test in Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). The additional element "auto" in the disputed domain name is descriptive of Complainant's field of business and does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity with Complainant's HOLLEY mark. Neither does the gTLD extension prevent a finding of confusing similarity because, in the context of the present case, it would be considered by Internet users to be a necessary technical requirement for an Internet domain name. This Panel finds therefore that the disputed domain name is identical to the HOLLEY mark in which Complainant has rights and Complainant has therefore succeeded in the first element of the test in Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Rights or Legitimate Interests Complainant has made out an unanswered prima facie case that Respondent has no rights legitimate interests in the disputed domain name as set out in Complainant's detailed submissions above. It is well established that once a complainant makes out a prima facie case that a respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name at issue, the burden of production shifts to the respondent to prove its rights or legitimate interests. Respondent has failed to discharge that burden and therefore this Panel must find that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Complainant has therefore succeeded in the second element of the test in Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Registration and Use in Bad Faith Complainant has shown that, through its predecessors in title, it has continually used, and has rights in the HOLLEY trademark dating back to its United States trademark registration dated September 9, 1924, and that it has maintained an established Internet presence with its website at <holley.com> since at least December 12, 1997. The disputed domain name was registered on November 5, 2022, long after Complainant established its trademark rights and its reputation online. The disputed domain name is composed of Complainant's distinctive mark and the word "auto" which is descriptive of Complainant's business. There is no evidence that Respondent has any rights in the HOLLEY mark, and Complainant has asserted that it has not granted Respondent any right to register the disputed domain name or to use its mark in any way. Complainant's HOLLEY mark is a distinctive in the context of the auto parts industry. Furthermore, on the website to which the disputed domain name resolves, a screen capture of which is exhibited in an annex to the Complaint, Respondent is purporting to offer Complainant's products to the public. There appears to be no plausible reason for registering the disputed domain name other than to create an association with Complainant and its HOLLEY mark. It is improbable therefore that the registrant of the disputed domain name was unaware of Complainant, its website at <holley.com>, and its HOLLEY branded auto products when the disputed domain name was chosen and registered. On the balance of probabilities, therefore, this Panel finds that the disputed domain name was chosen and registered with Complainant, its business and its mark in mind with the intention of taking predatory advantage of Complainant's rights and goodwill in the HOLLEY mark. The uncontested evidence in the form of the exhibited screen capture of the website to which the disputed domain name resolves which shows Respondent purporting to offer Complainant's products for sale at incredibly discounted prices. Typical of the level of discounts offered are a power charger kit with is offered at $90.50 discounted from $401.90, and a fuel pump offered at $92.50 discounted from $469.90. Complainant's HOLLEY mark is shown on some, but not all, of the images of the goods displayed on Respondent's website, nonetheless the inferences from the posted images and the product descriptions on the website are that Respondent is purporting to offer Complainant's genuine goods. On the balance of probabilities, the goods which Complainant is purporting to offer for sale cannot be Complainant's genuine goods. In making the decision and allowing Complainant's application in the Complaint, it is not necessary for this Panel to determine whether Respondent is genuinely offering goods for sale, or whether the goods on offer are counterfeit, because Respondent is using Complainant's mark within the disputed domain name to confuse and misdirect Internet traffic away from Complainant's website to Respondent's website, without Complainant's consent. Such use of Complainant's trademark within the disputed domain name which resolves to Respondent's website, is, on the balance of probabilities, intentionally intended to attract and confuse Internet users and cause them to divert their Internet traffic intended for Complainant and misdirect it to Respondent's website by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent's web site, which constitutes use in bad faith for the purposes of the Policy. As this Panel has found that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith, Complainant has succeeded in the third element of the test in Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). 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 <autoholley.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. ___________________________________________ James Bridgeman SC Panelist Dated: July 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.