DECISION

 

Holley Performance Products Inc. v. wen yunhui

Claim Number: FA2508002171640

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Holley Performance Products Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Chloe Conway of Brooks Kushman, P.C., Michigan, USA. Respondent is wen yunhui ("Respondent"), China.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <holley-sale.com>, registered with Xin Net Technology Corporation.

 

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.

 

Alan L. Limbury, as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on August 14, 2025. Forum received payment on August 14, 2025.

 

On August 17, 2025, Xin Net Technology Corporation confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <holley-sale.com> domain name is registered with Xin Net Technology Corporation and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Xin Net Technology Corporation has verified that Respondent is bound by the Xin Net Technology Corporation registration agreement, which is in Chinese, 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 18, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Chinese and English Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of September 8, 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@holley-sale.com. Also on August 18, 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 September 9, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Alan L. Limbury 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: LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDING

As noted, the Xin Net Technology Corporation registration agreement is in Chinese. Pursuant to Rule 11(a), the language of the proceeding in relation to the <holley-sale.com> domain name shall be Chinese unless otherwise determined by the Panel, having regard to the circumstances of the proceeding.

 

Complainant requests that the proceeding be conducted in English, noting that the <holley-sale.com> domain name is in English and resolves to an English language website. In the absence of any Response, these circumstances satisfy the Panel that Respondent is likely to be proficient in English and that there would be no undue prejudice to Respondent if English were the language of the proceeding.

 

Further, pursuant to Rule 11(a), the Panel determines that the language requirement has been satisfied through the Chinese and English language Written Notice of the Complaint and, absent a Response, determines that the proceedings may be conducted in English.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant, Holley Performance Products Inc., is a leading automotive performance company that has served for over a century as a prominent designer, marketer and manufacturer of high-performance automotive aftermarket products. In addition to common law rights owned by Complainant arising out of Complainant's long term and exclusive use of the HOLLEY mark, Complainant owns numerous incontestable federal registrations for trademarks comprising or including the HOLLEY mark.

 

The <holley-sale.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's HOLLEY mark.

 

Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <holley-sale.com> domain name. Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant, and Respondent's use of the HOLLEY mark is unauthorized. The domain name points to a site with infringing uses of Complainant's HOLLEY mark and proprietary images of Complainant's products and website design. Respondent is not and has not been commonly known by the domain name, and Complainant has not authorized or licensed Respondent to use any of its HOLLEY marks.

 

Respondent registered and uses the domain name in bad faith. Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the HOLLEY mark when Respondent registered the domain name. This is evident given Respondent's use of the trademark-laden domain name and website to pass itself off as Complainant and offer Complainant's products for sale on Respondent's website. Respondent uses the domain name to sell competing Holley products, intentionally disrupting the business of Complainant for its own commercial gain. This conduct misleads users into believing that the goods originate from or are associated with Complainant, when they are not authorized by Complainant.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant has established all the elements entitling it to relief.

 

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 shown that it has rights in numerous registered HOLLEY marks, including USPTO Registration No. 3,684,772, registered on September 22, 2009 for "Sportswear apparel for men and women" in International Class 25.

 

It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. The standing (or threshold) test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the complainant's trademark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview 3.0, ¶ 1.7.

 

The Panel finds Respondent's <holley-sale.com> domain name to be confusingly similar to Complainant's HOLLEY mark, only differing by the addition of a hyphen and the word "sale", which are insufficient to distinguish the domain name from Complainant's HOLLEY mark. The inconsequential ".com" generic top-level domain ("gTLD") may be ignored under this element. See, for example, Rollerblade, Inc. v. Chris McCrady, D2000-0429 (WIPO June 25, 2000).

 

Complainant has established this element.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides 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 Respondent's rights or legitimate interests to the domain name for purposes of Paragraph 4(a)(ii):

 

(i)                      before any notice to Respondent of the dispute, the use by Respondent 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)                      Respondent (as an individual, business or other organization) has been commonly known by the domain name, even if Respondent has acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or

 

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

 

The <holley-sale.com> domain name was registered on July 29, 2025, many years after the registration of Complainant's HOLLEY mark. It resolves to what appears to be a copy of Complainant's website at "www.holley.com", prominently displaying Complainant's HOLLEY mark and purporting to offer Complainant's products for sale. 

 

These circumstances, together with Complainant's assertions, are sufficient to constitute a prima facie showing of absence of rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name on the part of Respondent. The evidentiary burden therefore shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the <holley-sale.com> domain name. See JUUL Labs, Inc. v. Dryx Emerson / KMF Events LTD, FA1906001849706 (Forum July 17, 2019). Respondent has made no attempt to do so.

 

The Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name.

 

Complainant has established this element.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy is expressed in the conjunctive: "the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith" and Paragraph 4(b) sets out four illustrative circumstances, which, though not exclusive, shall be evidence of the registration and use of the domain name in bad faith for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii), including:

 

(iv)                      by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your web site 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 your web site or location or of a product or service on your web site or location.

The circumstances set out above in relation to the second element satisfy the Panel that Respondent was fully aware of Complainant, its HOLLEY mark and its "www.holley.com" website when Respondent registered the <holley-sale.com> domain name and that Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users 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 website and of the products promoted on that website. This demonstrates registration and use in bad faith to attract users for commercial gain under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).

 

Complainant has established this element.

 

DECISION

Complainant having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <holley-sale.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Alan L. Limbury, Panelist

Dated: September 10, 2025