DECISION

 

Tesla Inc. v. Michael Conners

Claim Number: FA2507002168403

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Tesla Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Sarah Alberstein of ArentFox Schiff LLP, District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is Michael Conners ("Respondent"), Wisconsin, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME 

The domain name at issue is <release-tesla.com>, registered with NICENIC INTERNATIONAL GROUP CO., LIMITED.

 

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.

 

Debrett G. Lyons as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on July 29, 2025; Forum received payment on July 29, 2025.

 

On July 29, 2025, NICENIC INTERNATIONAL GROUP CO., LIMITED confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <release-tesla.com> domain name is registered with NICENIC INTERNATIONAL GROUP CO., LIMITED and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. NICENIC INTERNATIONAL GROUP CO., LIMITED has verified that Respondent is bound by the NICENIC INTERNATIONAL GROUP CO., LIMITED 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 30, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 19, 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@release-tesla.com. Also on July 30, 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 20, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Debrett G. Lyons 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

Complainant asserts trademark rights in TESLA. Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark.

 

Complainant alleges that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Further, Complainant alleges that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith.

 

In particular, Complainant states that currently the disputed domain name does not resolve to a website but previously showed a webpage purporting to offer pre-release purchase of Complainant's TESLA BOT OPTIMUS product. Further, that Respondent has sent emails using the disputed domain name deceiving Complainant's customers and causing them to enter into a bogus transaction for that product.

 

B.       Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

The factual findings pertinent to the decision in this case are that:

1.       Complainant provides vehicles, energy, battery, and solar goods and services by reference to the trademark, TESLA;

2.       Complainant is the owner of United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") Reg. No. 4,554,429, registered on June 24, 2014, for TESLA;

3.       the disputed domain name was registered on July 21, 2025, using a privacy service to shield the name of Respondent; and

4.       the domain name has in the past resolved to an online location using the trademark and promoting the purchase of Complainant's new product, and has been used to send emails about that product which pose as having originated from Complainant.

 

DISCUSSION

Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted 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.  

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires a two-fold enquiry—a threshold investigation into whether a complainant has rights in a trademark, followed by an assessment of whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to that trademark.

 

Paragraph 4(a)(i) does not distinguish between registered and unregistered trademark rights (see, for example, Microsoft Corporation v. Story Remix / Inofficial, FA 1734934 (Forum July 10, 2017). A trademark registered with a national authority is evidence of trademark rights (see, for example, Mothers Against Drunk Driving v. phix, FA 174052 (Forum Sept. 25, 2003)).  Complainant provides evidence of its registration of TESLA with the USPTO, a national trademark authority, and so the Panel finds proof of trademark rights.

 

For the purposes of comparison of the trademark and domain name, the gTLD, ".com" can be disregarded (see, for example, Am. Int'l Group, Inc. v. Domain Admin. Ltd., FA 1106369 (Forum Dec. 31, 2007)). The domain name then differs from the trademark by hyphenation of the descriptive term, "release", to the trademark. The Panel finds that the domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark (see, by analogy, 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.")).

 

The Panel therefore finds that the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy are satisfied.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy states that any of the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be proved based on its evaluation of all evidence presented, shall demonstrate rights or legitimate interests to a domain name for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy:

 

(i)                      before any notice to you of the dispute, your use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or

 

(ii)                      you (as an individual, business, or other organization) have been commonly known by the domain name, even if you have acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or

 

(iii)                      you are making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.

 

Complainant need only make out a prima facie case that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, after which the onus shifts to Respondent to rebut that case by demonstrating those rights or interests (see, for example, Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, D2000‑0624 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000)).

 

There is no evidence that Respondent has any trademark rights of its own. The name of the domain name owner, Michael Conners, does not carry any suggestion that Respondent might be commonly known by the domain name. The use of the domain name is as described above. The evidence is that orders have been placed in consequence of use of the domain name, premised on Internet users' belief they were dealing with Complainant or a person authorized by Complainant. Such use is clearly not a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate non-commercial or fair use under the Policy  for (see, for example, 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).

 

A prima facie case has been made and so the onus shifts to Respondent to rebut that case by demonstrating those rights or interests.  Absent a Response, the onus is not met and so the Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied the second limb of the Policy.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Complainant must prove on the balance of probabilities both that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith and used in bad faith.  

 

Further guidance on that requirement is found in paragraph 4(b) of the Policy, which sets out four circumstances, any one of which is taken to be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith if established. 

 

The four specified circumstances are:

 

(i)                      circumstances indicating that the respondent has registered or acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of the respondent's documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or

 

(ii)                      the respondent has registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that Respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or

 

(iii)                      the respondent has registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or

 

(iv)                      by using the domain name, respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, internet users to respondent's website or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the respondent's website or location or of a product or service on the site or location.

 

The Panel finds that Respondent's conduct falls under paragraph 4(b)(iv). The Panel has found that the domain name to be confusingly similar to the trademark. The use of the domain name is for commercial gain. In terms of the Policy, the Panel finds that Respondent has used the disputed domain name to attract, for commercial gain, internet users to an online location by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of that location (see, for example, BBY Solutions, Inc. v.geeks squad, FA 1920588 (Forum, Dec. 14, 2020) finding bad faith under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy where respondent used the domain name to attempt to trick victims by creating a likelihood of confusion with complainant's mark, of either being the complainant or

having an affiliation with the complainant).

 

The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied the third and final element of the Policy.

 

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 <release-tesla.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Debrett G Lyons, Panelist

Dated: August 21, 2025