DECISION

 

Holley Performance Products Inc. v. userdc dger

Claim Number: FA2508002171642

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Holley Performance Products Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Chloe Conway of Brooks Kushman, P.C., Michigan, USA. Respondent is userdc dger ("Respondent"), California, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <holleystore.shop>, registered with Spaceship, Inc.

 

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.

 

Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq. as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

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

 

On August 18, 2025, Spaceship, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <holleystore.shop> domain name is registered with Spaceship, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Spaceship, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Spaceship, Inc. 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 18, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a 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@holleystore.shop. Also on August 18, 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 9, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq. 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

i) Complainant 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. Since 1905, Complainant has continuously used the trademark HOLLEY in the United States in connection with automotive aftermarket products such as carburetors, fuel controls, fuel pumps, etc. The HOLLEY mark enjoys substantial recognition due to Complainant's long-standing, widespread use, and extensive promotion. Complainant holds rights in numerous incontestable federal registrations for trademarks comprised of or that include the HOLLEY mark, inter alia, USPTO Reg. No. 188,941 (registered September 9, 1924). The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's HOLLEY mark, as it incorporates the mark in its entirety and merely adds the generic or descriptive term "store," together with the ".shop" gTLD.

 

ii) Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor has Respondent been authorized by Complainant to use the HOLLEY mark. Respondent has not used the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, but instead uses it to pass off as Complainant and sell competing products. The disputed domain name's resolving website is fraudulent, and is not authorized by Complainant.

 

iii) Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. The website to which the disputed domain name resolves disrupts Complainant's business by passing off as Complainant, and creating confusion as to sponsorship or endorsement, thereby gaining commercial benefits. Moreover, Respondent had both constructive and actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the HOLLEY mark prior to registering the disputed domain name, given Respondent's use of the trademark-laden domain name to pass itself off as Complainant and offer Holley products for sale on Respondent's website. Respondent intentionally and willfully misrepresented to the Registrar that the registration of the disputed domain name did not interfere with, or infringe upon, the rights of any third parties. Respondent intentionally targeted Complainant, and sought to misappropriate the goodwill and value of its brand through misleading domain name registration and use.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent did not submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

1. The disputed domain name was registered on July 18, 2025.

 

2. Complainant has established rights in numerous incontestable federal registrations for trademarks comprised of or that include the HOLLEY mark, inter alia, USPTO Reg. No. 188,941 (registered September 9, 1924).

 

3. The disputed domain name resolved to a website displaying numerous images of Complainant's branded goods, purportedly for sale.

 

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 numerous incontestable federal registrations for trademarks comprised of or that include the HOLLEY mark, inter alia, USPTO Reg. No. 188,941 (registered September 9, 1924). Registration of a mark with the USPTO is sufficient to establish rights in the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). As Complainant has provided evidence of such registration, the Panel finds that Complainant has established rights in the HOLLEY mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Complainant further contends that the disputed domain name <holleystore.shop> is confusingly similar to its HOLLEY mark because it incorporates the mark in its entirety and merely adds the generic or descriptive term "store," together with the ".shop" gTLD. The addition of a generic term and a gTLD does not serve to distinguish a disputed domain name from the incorporated mark under 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) ("The 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.").

 

Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's HOLLEY 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), then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Section 2.1, WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 ("Where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element.").

 

Complainant argues that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name as Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor has Respondent been authorized by Complainant to use Complainant's mark, and Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant. Relevant information, such as WHOIS information, can be used as evidence to show a respondent is or is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). The Panel notes that the WHOIS data lists "userdc dger" as the registrant, and there is no evidence in the record to suggest Respondent was authorized to use the mark. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).

 

Complainant argues that Respondent has not used the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, as Respondent is passing itself off as Complainant by selling competing goods. Using a disputed domain name to pass off as a complainant for the purpose of offering competing products does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services, or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See General Motors LLC v. MIKE LEE, FA 1659965 (Forum Mar. 10, 2016) ("use of a domain to sell products and/or services that compete directly with a complainant's business does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).").

 

Complainant further contends that Respondent is deliberately attempting to trade on the goodwill associated with Complainant and to confuse and mislead users. The Panel notes from the screenshot of the disputed domain name's resolving website and that of Complainant's website that Respondent's resolving website prominently displays Complainant's HOLLEY mark and images of products that compete with Complainant's goods.

 

The Panel finds that Respondent's passing off activities and diversion of Internet users seeking Complainant to its own website offering competing products do not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services, or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii).

 

Accordingly, the Panel concludes that Complainant has made out a prima facie case on the foregoing grounds. As Respondent has not filed a Response or otherwise attempted to rebut this prima facie showing, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Complainant contends that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith, as Respondent registered the domain name to pass off as Complainant and sell competing versions of Complainant's products for Respondent's commercial gain.

 

When a respondent uses a disputed domain name to impersonate a complainant, such conduct may constitute bad faith disruption of the complainant's business under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii), as well as an attempt to attract Internet users for commercial gain under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Bittrex, Inc. v. Wuxi Yilian LLC, FA 1760517 (Forum Dec. 27, 2017) ("finding bad faith under 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 to confuse users into believing that Respondent is Complainant, or is otherwise affiliated or associated with Complainant'").

 

As noted, the disputed domain name's resolving website prominently displays Complainant's HOLLEY mark and images of products competing with Complainant's goods for sale.

 

The Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in a manner that disrupts Complainant's business by diverting Internet users seeking Complainant to Respondent's website for Respondent's commercial benefit, and that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith in violation of Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and 4(b)(iv).

 

Complainant further argues that Respondent registered the disputed domain name with constructive and actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the HOLLEY mark, as demonstrated by Respondent's passing off as Complainant by displaying product images bearing the HOLLEY mark.

 

While constructive knowledge is insufficient to establish bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii), actual knowledge of a complainant's trademark rights is sufficient and may be shown by use of the disputed domain name to impersonate a complainant. See Orbitz Worldwide, LLC v. Domain Librarian, FA 1535826 (Forum Feb. 6, 2014) ("The Panel notes that although the UDRP does not recognize 'constructive notice' as sufficient grounds for finding Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) bad faith, the Panel here finds actual knowledge through the name used for the domain and the use made of it."); see also Spectrum Brands, Inc. v. Guo Li Bo, FA 1760233 (Forum Jan. 5, 2018) ("[T]he fact Respondent registered a domain name that looked identical to the SPECTRUM BRANDS mark and used that as an email address to pass itself off as Complainant shows that Respondent knew of Complainant and its trademark rights at the time of registration.").

 

The Panel notes Complainant's widespread use, promotion, and recognition of the HOLLEY mark for over a century as a prominent designer, marketer, and manufacturer of high-performance automotive aftermarket products. Since 1905, Complainant has continuously used the trademark HOLLEY in the United States in connection with automotive aftermarket products such as carburetors, fuel controls, and fuel pumps. The HOLLEY mark enjoys substantial recognition due to Complainant's long-standing, widespread use, and extensive promotion. As such, Complainant's mark had become a well-known symbol of Complainant and its goods well before the registration of the disputed domain name on July 18, 2025.

 

The Panel therefore infers, based on the notoriety of Complainant's mark and Respondent's use of the disputed domain name to pass off as Complainant, displaying Complainant's HOLLEY mark and HOLLEY-branded automotive products, that Respondent had knowledge of Complainant's rights in the HOLLEY mark at the time of registration. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith under 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 <holleystore.shop> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq., Panelist

Dated: September 9, 2025