DECISION

 

American Honda Motor Co., Inc. v. Zhichao Yang

Claim Number: FA2510002183644

 

PARTIES

Complainant is American Honda Motor Co., Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Samantha Markley of Loza & Loza, LLP, California, USA. Respondent is Zhichao Yang ("Respondent"), China.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <americanhondafinanc.com>, registered with Cosmotown, 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.

 

Petter Rindforth as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on October 17, 2025; Forum received payment on October 17, 2025.

 

On October 22, 2025, Cosmotown, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <americanhondafinanc.com> domain name is registered with Cosmotown, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Cosmotown, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Cosmotown, 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 October 24, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of November 13, 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@americanhondafinanc.com. Also on October 24, 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 November 14, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Petter Rindforth 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

The Complainant is the owner of the well-known and registered trademark HONDA. Complainant states that Complainant is the world's largest motorcycle manufacturer, the world's largest engine maker, one of the world's leading automakers, and one of the best-known and most well-respected companies on the planet.

 

Complainant is the owner of several U.S. trademark registrations for HONDA, the oldest registered in 1967. The trademark has been used on the U.S. market since 1972. Complainant is also the holder of the domain name <honda.com> since 1989.

 

The domain name at issue includes the entirety of Complainant's HONDA trademark and thus is virtually identical to the Complainant's trademark, different only in that it includes the generic and descriptive term "AMERICAN" and "FINANC" (an abbreviation of the wording "FINANCIAL.")

 

Respondent has no legitimate rights in the domain name, as Complainant has exclusive rights in the HONDA trademark and has not authorized Respondent to register and use the disputed domain name; Respondent is not affiliated with or related to Complainant, nor is Respondent licensed or authorized to use the HONDA trademark; the domain name leads to generic hosting provider landing page that identifies related searches for "CHEAP AUTO LOANS," "VEHICLE FINANCING," "CAR FINANCING," "CHEAPEST CAR LOANS," and "HONDA CPO FINANCE OFFER; there are currently a total of eighty-two (82) subdomains for the disputed domain name; it is clear that Respondent's use of the term HONDA refers to Complainant and implies some type of affiliation and/or relationship with Complainant, and registration of the disputed domain name and the subdomains, suggest an infrastructure design to impersonate Complainant in the near future.

 

It is clear that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

The Complainant claims to be the owner of the owner of the following U.S. trademark registrations:

 

No. 826,779 HONDA (word), registered on April 4, 1967 for goods in Intl Classes 7 and 12;

No. 5,933,279 HONDA (word), registered on December 10, 2019 for services in Intl Class 35;

No. 2,390,535 H HONDA (logo), registered on September 26, 2000 for goods and services in Intl Classes 28 and 35; and

No. 2,390,539 H HONDA (logo), registered on September 26, 2000 for goods and services in Intl Classes 16, 18, 25, 28 and 35.

 

The Panel notes that the Complainant is not the at USPTO registered owner of any of these trademarks – the owner is the Japanese company Honda Motor Company. As the Complainant is the North American subsidiary of the registered owner, the Panel has decided to further refer to the Complainant as the "owner" of the trademark HONDA.

 

The disputed domain name <americanhondafinanc.com> was registered on May 21, 2025. 

 

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

The Complainant claims rights to the HONDA trademark based upon registration with the USPTO. Registration with USPTO sufficiently establishes rights in a trademark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Haas Automation, Inc. v. Jim Fraser, FA 1627211 (Forum Aug. 4, 2015) (finding that Complainant's USPTO registrations for the HAAS mark sufficiently demonstrate its rights in the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)).

 

Complainant provides copies of some USPTO registrations for the HONDA trademark (e.g., No. 826,779 HONDA, registered on April 4, 1967), owned by Complainant's parent company. Therefore, the Panel finds that Complainant has - via its parent company – rights in the HONDA trademark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Next, the Complainant states that the disputed domain name <americanhondafinanc.com> is "virtually identical" to the Complainant's trademark, incorporating HONDA, as well as the generic and descriptive term "AMERICAN" and "FINANC".

 

The Panel notes that, although the disputed domain name is not identical to the HONDA trademark, the added word "AMERICAN" clearly relates to the Complainant's company name, and the word "FINANC" is a common abbreviation of the word "FINANCIAL", indicating in total that the domain name is related to the Complainant's financial department.

 

The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the HONDA trademark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Once the Complainant makes a prima facie case in support of its allegations in respect of the second element of the Policy, the burden shifts to the Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). See 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.").  

 

Complainant contends that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the <americanhondafinanc.com> domain name as Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name nor has Complainant authorized or licensed to Respondent any rights in the HONDA trademark.

 

When a response is lacking, WHOIS information may be used to determine whether a respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. Suzen Khan / Nancy Jain / Andrew Stanzy, FA 1741129 (Forum Aug. 16, 2017) (finding that respondent had no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names when the identifying information provided by WHOIS was unrelated to the domain names or respondent's use of the same).

 

Additionally, lack of authorization to use a complainant's trademark 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 [the] 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)").

 

The WHOIS information for the disputed domain name lists the registrant as "Zhichao Yang" and Complainant asserts there is no other evidence to suggest that Respondent was authorized to use the HONDA trademark. Therefore, the Panel find that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).

 

The Complainant argues that further evidence of Respondents lack of legitimate interest, is the fact that the disputed domain name resolves to a landing page that provides related search results for automotive goods and services relating to Complainant and Complainant's products. Such use can never be the base of legitimate interest.

 

Thus, the Panel find that Respondent does not provide a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Complainant argues that Respondent registered and uses the <americanhondafinanc.com> domain name in bad faith.

 

As noted above, the disputed domain name is registered long after the Complainant established its trademark rights. Complainant's trademark is also distinctive from start. The disputed domain name consists of Complainant's trademark, only adding words that in fact are even more related to Complainant, as they are parts of Complainant's company name, and adding a word indicating financial services related to Complainant.

 

Further, the fact that Respondent has created a total of 82 subdomains related to the <americanhondafinanc.com> domain name is a clear indication of planned mis-use and false identification as being part of the Complainant's business, and thereby confuse Complainant's customers.

 

In addition, use of a domain name to resolve to a page of third-party links can demonstrate a respondent's bad faith per Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv). See Health Republic Insurance Company v. Above.com Legal, FA 1622088 (Forum July 10, 2015) ("The use of a domain name's resolving website to host links to competitors of a complainant shows intent to disrupt that complainant's business, thereby showing bad faith in use and registration under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).").

 

Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent has registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv).

 

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 <americanhondafinanc.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Petter Rindforth, Panelist

Dated: November 17, 2025