Themsdignition.com

The timeline behind themsdignition.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. / MSD, LLC v. Asjad Aamir Asjad Aamir / AutoCornerd Claim Number: FA2508002170100 PARTIES Complainant is Holley Performance Products Inc. / MSD, LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Chloe Conway of Brooks Kushman, P.C., Michigan, USA. Respondent is Asjad Aamir Asjad Aamir / AutoCornerd ("Respondent"), Pakistan. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <themsdignition.com> ("Domain Name"), registered with Porkbun 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. Nicholas J.T. Smith as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on August 7, 2025; Forum received payment on August 7, 2025. On August 7, 2025, Porkbun LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <themsdignition.com> domain name is registered with Porkbun LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Porkbun LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Porkbun 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 August 12, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of September 2, 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@themsdignition.com. Also on August 12, 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. Having received no response from Respondent, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default. On September 3, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Nicholas J.T. Smith 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." Previous panels have interpreted Forum's Supplemental Rule 1(e) to allow multiple parties to proceed as one party where they can show a sufficient link to each other. For example, in Vancouver Org. Comm. for the 2010 Olympic and Paralymic Games & Int'l Olympic Comm. v. Malik, FA 666119 (Forum May 12, 2006), the panel stated: It has been accepted that it is permissible for two complainants to submit a single complaint if they can demonstrate a link between the two entities such as a relationship involving a license, a partnership or an affiliation that would establish the reason for the parties bringing the complaint as one entity. In Tasty Baking, Co. & Tastykake Invs., Inc. v. Quality Hosting, FA 208854 (Forum Dec. 28, 2003), the panel treated the two complainants as a single entity where both parties held rights in trademarks contained within the disputed domain names. Likewise, in Am. Family Health Srvs. Group, LLC v. Logan, FA 220049 (Forum Feb. 6, 2004), the panel found a sufficient link between the complainants where there was a license between the parties regarding use of the TOUGHLOVE mark. The Panel has reviewed the Complaint and is satisfied that that MSD, LLC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Holley Performance Products Inc. and that the parties jointly own and use the MSD mark. This is sufficient to establish a sufficient nexus or link between the Complainants such that they should be treated as a single entity in this proceeding referred to in the singular, as "Complainant". PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant Complainant is a United States automotive performance company that, either directly or through subsidiaries and predecessors in title, has for over 50 years offered a variety of high performance automotive ignition systems under the MSD mark. Complainant offers its automotive ignition systems through various channels including through its official website at www.msdignition.com. Complainant has rights in the MSD mark through its registration of the mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") (e.g., Reg. No. 2,299,279 registered December 14, 1999). Respondent's <themsdignition.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark because it incorporates the MSD mark and adds the generic or descriptive terms "the" and "ignition" and the ".com" generic top-level domain ("gTLD"). It is also similar to Complainant's official website at the domain name <msdignition.com>. Respondent has no legitimate interests in the <themsdignition.com> domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name and Complainant has not authorized or licensed Respondent any rights in the MSD mark. Additionally, Respondent does not use the Domain Name for any bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Rather, Respondent is attempting to profit from confusing users into believing that the resolving site ("Respondent's Website") belongs to Complainant by reproducing Complainant's MSD mark, a mark similar to the Complainant's device mark and copyrighted images of Complainant's products. Respondent registered and uses the <themsdignition.com> domain name in bad faith. Respondent registered the Domain Name in order to disrupt Complainant's business and divert customers for commercial gain. Respondent also had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the MSD mark at the time of registration evidenced by the use of the Complainant's marks and images of Complainant's products on the Respondent's Website. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant holds trademark rights for the MSD mark. The Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant's MSD mark. Complainant has established that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the 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. 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 rights in the MSD mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through its registration of the mark with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 2,299,279 registered December 14, 1999). Registration with the USPTO can sufficiently establish rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Thermo Electron Corp. v. Xu, FA 713851 (Forum July 12, 2006) (finding that the complainants had established rights in marks where the marks were registered with a national trademark authority). The Panel finds that the <themsdignition.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's MSD mark as it consists of the MSD mark, the generic or descriptive terms "the" and "ignition" and the gTLD ".com". The addition of a generic term or terms to a wholly incorporated mark fails to sufficiently distinguish a disputed domain name from a mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Skechers U.S.A., Inc. and Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II v. Svensson Viljae, FA 1784650 (Forum June 1, 2018) (finding confusing similarity where "[t]he disputed domain name <skechers-outlet.com> adds a hyphen and the generic term 'outlet' to Complainant's registered SKECHERS mark, and appends the '.com' top-level domain."); see also Dell Inc. v. Protection of Private Person / Privacy Protection, FA 1681432 (Forum Aug. 1, 2016) ("A TLD (whether a gTLD, sTLD or ccTLD) is disregarded under a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis because domain name syntax requires TLDs."). The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Rights or Legitimate Interests Complainant alleges that Respondent holds no rights or legitimate interests in the 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 Domain Name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), and then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm't Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006) and AOL LLC v. Gerberg, FA 780200 (Forum Sept. 25, 2006) ("Complainant must first make a prima facie showing that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interest in the subject domain names, which burden is light. If Complainant satisfies its burden, then the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain names."). The Panel holds that Complainant has made out a prima facie case. Complainant asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name as Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name, nor has Complainant authorized Respondent to use the MSD mark. Respondent has no relationship, affiliation, connection, endorsement or association with Complainant. WHOIS information can help support a finding that a respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, especially where a privacy service has been engaged. See State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Dale Anderson, FA1504001613011 (Forum May 21, 2015) (concluding that because the WHOIS record lists "Dale Anderson" as the registrant of the disputed domain name, the respondent was not commonly known by the <statefarmforum.com> domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)); see also Kohler Co. v. Privacy Service, FA1505001621573 (Forum July 2, 2015) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) where "Privacy Service" was listed as the registrant of the disputed domain name). The WHOIS information of record lists "Asjad Aamir Asjad Aamir / AutoCornerd" as the registrant of record. Coupled with Complainant's unrebutted assertions as to absence of any affiliation or authorization between the parties, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name in accordance with Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). The Domain Name resolves to the Respondent's Website which, through the reproduction of the MSD mark, a mark that is strikingly similar to Complainant's device mark, copyrighted images of Complainant's products and the absence of an explicit disclaimer that it is not associated with the Complainant, passes itself off as an official website of the Complainant or a retailer authorized by the Complainant (which is not the case) for the purpose of purporting to offer for sale unauthorized versions of Complainant's products, in either case in direct competition with Complainant's authorized MSD products and authorized retailer channels. The use of a confusingly similar domain name to resolve to a webpage that offers unauthorized versions of a complainant's goods does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use; indeed it provides a false impression that the Respondent is affiliated with or authorized by Complainant. See BALENCIAGA SA v. ling lin, FA 1768542 (Forum February 16, 2018) ("The disputed domain names incorporate Complainant's registered mark, and are being used for websites that prominently display Complainant's mark and logo, along with apparent images of Complainant's products, offering them for sale at discounted prices. The sites do not disclaim any connection with Complainant, and in fact seem to be designed to create an appearance of such a connection. Such use does not give rise to rights or legitimate interests."). See also Am. Int'l Group, Inc. v. Busby, FA 156251 (Forum May 30, 2003) (finding that the respondent attempts to pass itself off as the complainant online, which is blatant unauthorized use of the complainant's mark and is evidence that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name). The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Registration and Use in Bad Faith The Panel finds on the balance of probabilities that, at the time of registration of the Domain Name (September 10, 2024), Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's MSD mark since the Respondent's Website passes itself off as an official website of the Complainant or entity connected to Complainant including reproducing Complainant's mark and images of Complainant's products. Furthermore, there is no obvious explanation, nor has one been provided, for an entity to register a domain name that contains the MSD mark and use it to redirect visitors to a website purportedly selling unauthorized ignition products in direct competition with the Complainant under the MSD mark other than to take advantage of Complainant's reputation in the MSD mark. In the absence of rights or legitimate interests of its own this demonstrates registration in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). The Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the Domain Name in bad faith to create confusion with Complainant's MSD mark for commercial gain by using the confusingly similar Domain Name to resolve to a website that purports to offer unauthorized versions of Complainant's products in direct competition with the Complainant's products. Using a confusingly similar domain name to trade upon the goodwill of a complainant can evince bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Xylem Inc. and Xylem IP Holdings LLC v. YinSi BaoHu YiKaiQi, FA1504001612750 (Forum May 13, 2015) ("The Panel agrees that Respondent's use of the website to display products similar to Complainant's, imputes intent to attract Internet users for commercial gain, and finds bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)."). See also See Bittrex, Inc. v. Wuxi Yilian LLC, FA 1760517 (Forum December 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 mimics Complainant's own website in order to confuse users into believing that Respondent is Complainant or is otherwise affiliated or associated with Complainant."). The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied 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 <themsdignition.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Nicholas J.T. Smith, Panelist Dated: September 4, 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.