DECISION

 

AM General LLC v. Adam Menaldi

Claim Number: FA2507002165876

 

PARTIES

Complainant is AM General LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Joshua S. Frick of Barnes & Thornburg LLP, Indiana, USA. Respondent is Adam Menaldi ("Respondent"), Texas, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <humveerental.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.

 

Steven M. Levy as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on July 15, 2025; Forum received payment on July 15, 2025.

 

On July 16, 2025, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <humveerental.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 July 17, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 6, 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@humveerental.com. Also on July 17, 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 August 7, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Steven M. Levy 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

Since 1983, Complainant has been engaged in the sale of vehicles, trucks, toys, model kits for building toy trucks, and apparel under the trademark HUMVEE. The mark is registered at the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") at Reg. No. 1697530 dated June 30, 1992; Reg. No. 2305256 dated January 4, 2000; and others.

 

The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the HUMVEE mark in that it incorporates the mark in its entirety and only adds the generic term "rental," and the ".com" TLD.

 

Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name where it is not commonly known by the domain name and its website purports to offer Complainant's HUMVEE-branded vehicles for rent despite having no rights in the mark or Complainant's authorization to use the mark.

 

The disputed domain name was registered and is used in bad faith based on Respondent's prior knowledge of Complainant's mark and its use of the domain name to divert Internet users searching for Complainant and/or Complainant's official website to Respondent's website for financial gain.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

-       Complainant has demonstrated its ownership of rights to the HUMVEE trademark and the <humveerental.com> domain name is confusingly similar to the mark;

-       Complainant has not made a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests where it is actually engaged in the rental of Complainant's products and appears to be making a nominative fair use of Complainant's mark;

-       Respondent has not registered and does not use the disputed domain name in bad faith based on its above-mentioned activities.

 

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 HUMVEE mark through its registrations with the USPTO. Registration of a mark with the USPTO is sufficient to demonstrate rights in the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See DIRECTV, LLC v. The Pearline Group, FA 1818749 (Forum Dec. 30, 2018) ("Complainant's ownership of a USPTO registration for DIRECTV demonstrate its rights in such mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).") Complainant provides screenshots of its USPTO registration certificates. Therefore, the Panel finds that Complainant has rights in its asserted mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Next, Complainant argues that Respondent's <humveerental.com> domain name is confusingly similar to the HUMVEE mark because it incorporates the entirety of the mark and adds the generic term "rental" as well as the ".com" TLD. The addition of a generic term and a TLD to a trademark is typically not sufficient to distinguish a disputed domain name from that mark. See Morgan Stanley v. Eugene Sykorsky / private person, FA 1651901 (Forum Jan. 19, 2016) (concluding that the addition of a generic term and top level domain to a trademark is inconsequential under a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis.) As the <humveerental.com> domain name incorporates the entirety of Complainant's mark and adds only a generic word and a TLD, the Panel finds that it is confusingly similar to Complainant's 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). Should it succeed in this effort, the burden then shifts to Respondent to show that 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 first asserts that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the <humveerental.com> domain name since Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and Complainant has not authorized or licensed to Respondent any rights in the HUMVEE mark. WHOIS information is often referenced when considering whether a respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. LY Ta, FA 1789106 (Forum June 21, 2018) (concluding a respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name where the complainant asserted it did not authorize the respondent to use the mark, and the relevant WHOIS information indicated the respondent is not commonly known by the domain name). Additionally, lack of authorization to use a complainant's mark may indicate that the respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. See Emerson Electric Co. v. golden humble / golden globals, FA 1787128 (Forum June 11, 2018) ("lack of evidence in the record to indicate a respondent is authorized to use complainant's mark may support a finding that the respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).) Here, the WHOIS record, as verified to the Forum by the concerned Registrar, identifies the registrant name for the disputed domain name as "Adam Menaldi". Further, Complainant states that "Respondent is not associated with Complainant and Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent's use of the HUMVEE Marks."

 

While Respondent has not participated in these proceedings to assert a defense, the Panel notes that an earlier version of its website, a screenshot of which has been submitted by Complainant, displays a graphic containing the text "Padre Island Humvee Rentals" and a statement "At Padre Island Humvee Rentals, we believe that everyone deserves to have access to all the island has to offer!" The current version of its site, screenshots of which have also been submitted and which appears to have been changed after Complainant sent a demand letter to Respondent, uses a revised graphic with the text "Padre Island Combat Cruiser Rentals" but contains a review from a customer named "Chris" which states, in part, "PI Humvee Rentals made this day perfect…" The Panel finds the totality of this evidence to be inconclusive but acknowledges that there is a possibility that Respondent may be commonly known by the disputed domain name. In any event, this point is made moot based on the Panel's findings under its analysis of Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii).

 

Complainant next argues that the disputed domain name is not being used in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. More specifically, it states that "Respondent is using its Website purportedly to offer Complainant's HUMVEE-branded vehicles for rent. Despite having no rights in the HUMVEE Marks or Complainant's authorization to use the Marks, Respondent is using Complainant's HUMVEE mark in the Disputed Domain and prominently displayed Complainant's HUMVEE mark (including in the name 'Padre Island HUMVEE Rentals'". 

 

The Panel views this situation as requiring analysis under the test for nominative fair use of a trademark by a reseller or distributor as set out in the often-cited and venerated decision of Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ASD, Inc., D2001-0903 (WIPO Nov. 6, 2001). Under this test, one who operates a business that deals in trademarked goods or services (whether authorized or unauthorized) may demonstrate that its domain name use is bona fide  where certain conditions are met. To satisfy this test, a respondent:

 

i.         must actually be offering the goods or services at issue;

ii.        must use the site to sell only the trademarked goods or services, otherwise it could be using the trademark to bait Internet users and then switch them to other goods or services;

iii. must accurately disclose the relationship between the registrant and the trademark owner; and

iv. must not try to corner the market in all domain names, thus depriving the owner of the trademark from reflecting its own mark in a domain name.

 

Id.

 

The third element of the Oki Data test has been the subject of significant discussion and, rather than require a formal and prominent disclaimer of relationship, Panels have taken a more holistic approach and considered whether the overall impression of a respondent's website content conveys the message that it is not affiliated with the trademark owner for the promoted goods or services. See UDRP Perspectives on Recent Jurisprudence, § 2.3 (updated June 2, 2025), available at https://udrpperspectives.org) ("More recently, a modified version of the Oki Data test has been adopted by some panelists that adopt a more holistic approach to the Oki Data criteria, in particular whether the absence of a prominent disclaimer necessarily makes the Respondent's use illegitimate. Under this more holistic and less rigid approach, Panels look at multiple factors including domain name composition, website content that may either confirm or deny affiliation with the Complainant as well as any other circumstances relating to the use of the domain name and Respondent's business.") See also Dashing Joys Limited and Imiracle (Shenzhen) Technology Co., Ltd v. Mohammad Zafar, UDRP-107605 (CAC July 16, 2025) (reinterpreting the third Oki Data factor as whether "[t]he Respondent's website can be easily distinguished from that of the trademark owner.") 

 

Here, under the first Oki Data factor, the Complainant acknowledges that Respondent is actually providing the service of renting out legitimate HUMVEE branded vehicles and it does not claim that this is in any way a scam or nefarious activity. The Panel notes the existence, on Respondent's website, of a link titled "Book Your Adventure" followed by a telephone number that uses the "361" area code that is local to the region around Padre Island, Texas. There are also somewhat detailed customer reviews posted on the site. Under the second Oki Data factor, Complainant does not assert that Respondent offers or attempts to switch customers to third party or competing goods or services. As for the third Oki Data factor, under the holistic approach discussed above, while the <humveerental.com> site does not contain an express disclaimer of relationship with Complainant, it does not copy the look-and-feel of the screenshots of Complainant's own website at <amgeneral.com> which have been submitted into evidence. Further, although it displays photos of HUMVEE vehicles, there is no claim that these are not original photos taken by or on behalf of Respondent. Finally, it does identify itself as "Padre Island Humvee Rentals" and contains the statement "Locally owned and operated, we want everyone to enjoy the island life!" In the aggregate, these aspects of Respondent's site convey the message that it is distinguishable from and not operated by Complainant. Finally, under the fourth Oki Data factor there is no evidence that Respondent is attempting to corner the market for HUMVEE-related domain names.

 

Complainant cites a number of prior decisions in which rental businesses have been ordered to transfer their domain names but the Panel feels that these are either inapposite to the present facts, e.g., Clark Equipment Company v. Christopher Walls / Bobcat Rentals Co., FA 1804358 (Forum Oct. 3, 2018) (<bobcatrentalsco.com> ordered transferred but Respondent's website offers "renting many types and brands of equipment"), or are so vague in their description of the accused activity (e.g., "services that compete directly with Complainant's business") as to be unhelpful as guidance in the present case. H-D U.S.A., LLC v. Faith Caldeira / Paradise Rent A Car, FA 1664984 (Forum Apr. 17, 2016); Clark Equipment Company v. Cathy Taylor, FA 1775063 (Forum Apr. 16, 2018). Rather, the Panel finds that the facts of the present situation are closer to those presented in AM General LLC v. Anything Example, FA 2143691 (Forum Mar. 28, 2025), where that Respondent offered Complainant's vehicles for rent and "[t]he fact that the vehicles offered by Respondent are represented to be genuine HUMVEE vehicles appears to be a key aspect of its business, at least arguably making the use of the mark necessary to describe Respondent's services. It does not appear to the Panel that Respondent is making gratuitous use of the mark beyond the extent needed for that purpose."

 

Applying a holistic version of the Oki Data test to the present case, the Panel finds that Respondent is operating an actual business which offers the rental of genuine HUMVEE vehicles and that it is making a nominative fair use of the mark. As such, the Panel finds that Complainant has not made a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the <humveerental.com> domain name.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Complainant first asserts that Respondent registered the <humveerental.com> domain name in bad faith based on it having had actual knowledge of the HUMVEE mark at the time that it registered the domain name. The Panel accepts that Respondent certainly had prior knowledge of Complainant's mark in light of its activities in renting Complainant's vehicles. However, the facts of this case do not support a conclusion that this knowledge indicates bad faith targeting of Complainant's mark when the disputed domain name was registered.

 

As for bad faith use, Complainant asserts that "Respondent is plainly using Complainant's HUMVEE Marks as part of a scheme to financially capitalize on the goodwill inherent in the Marks to divert Internet users searching for Complainant and/or Complainant's official website to Respondent's Website for financial gain." However, for the reasons discussed in the previous section, the submitted evidence does not meet the preponderance of the evidence standard which is required in UDRP cases to support a contention of bad faith use through customer diversion. See WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 at ¶ 4.2. Complainant goes on to point out that Respondent "prominently display[s] the HUMVEE Military Vehicle Configuration trademark", a copy of the USPTO registration having been submitted into evidence (e.g., Reg. No. 5107327). The Panel finds that, while Respondent's original "Padre Island Humvee Rentals" graphic and its revised "Padre Island Combat Cruiser Rentals" graphic do show a drawing of what is presumed to be one of Complainant's vehicles, it is somewhat different from the asserted HUMVEE Military Vehicle Configuration trademark and is directly related to conveying the message that Respondent rents these vehicles.

 

On balance, the Panel finds it more likely that Respondent is not a cybersquatter seeking to improperly target or improperly capitalize on Complainant's trademark but is, rather, operating a legitimate business of renting genuine HUMVEE vehicles and is thus using the mark in a nominatively fair manner. Considering all of the evidence presented in this case, Respondent's activities here do not meet the requirements of bad faith registration and use, either under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) (disrupting Complainant's business as a competitor) or ¶ 4(b)(iv) (seeking commercial gain through a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's trademark).

 

DECISION

Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be DENIED.

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <humveerental.com> domain name REMAIN WITH Respondent.

 

 

 

Steven M. Levy, Panelist

Dated: August 12, 2025