DECISION

 

American Honda Motor Co., Inc. v. Hendra Tjia

Claim Number: FA2601002201280

 

PARTIES

Complainant is American Honda Motor Co., Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Samantha Markley of Loza & Loza, LLP, California, USA. Respondent is Hendra Tjia ("Respondent"), Indonesia.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <honda77.sbs>, registered with NameCheap, Inc.

 

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.

 

Adam Taylor as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on January 22, 2026; Forum received payment on January 22, 2026.

 

On January 23, 2026, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <honda77.sbs> domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. NameCheap, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameCheap, 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 January 27, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 17, 2026 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@honda77.sbs. Also on January 27, 2026, 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 February 18, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Adam Taylor 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 contends that it has rights in the HONDA mark based upon registration of its mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") and upon common law rights arising from long-standing continuous business use. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark.

 

Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Complainant's mark is well-known. Respondent has not used the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; on the contrary, Respondent is using the disputed domain name to imply some type of affiliation with Complainant. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Respondent has not made legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. Complainant has never authorized Respondent to use, or to register a domain name incorporating, Complainant's mark.

 

Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent's actual knowledge of Complainant's mark is evidenced by its fame. Respondent has used the disputed domain name to imply some type of affiliation with Complainant and to create a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's mark for commercial gain. The disputed domain name also constitutes bad faith in the totality of the circumstances in this case, i.e., aside from the specific factors under Policy ¶ 4(b).

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant is part of the automobile group that has traded under the mark HONDA since at least the 1950s. The group's turnover was some USD 1.44 billion in the year to March 31, 2025.

 

Complainant's parent company, Honda Motor Co, Ltd, incorporated in Japan,  owns various registered trademarks for HONDA, including Reg. No. 826,779, registered with the USPTO on April 4, 1967.

 

Complainant operates a website at www.honda.com.

 

The disputed domain name was registered on November 24, 2025.

 

As of January 22, 2026, the disputed domain name resolved to a gambling website.

 

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 3.1 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

Since Complainant has provided evidence of registration of the HONDA mark with the USPTO, the Panel finds that Complainant has rights in that mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

While the mark is owned by a different entity to Complainant, that entity is nonetheless part of the same corporate group. In these circumstances, and in the absence of any objection from Respondent, which has not appeared in the proceeding, the Panel thinks it reasonable to infer that Complainant has rights in the trademark for the purpose of standing to file the Complaint. See WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.1 at ¶1.4.1.

 

The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant's distinctive HONDA mark and adds the number "77". It is well established under the Policy that the incorporation of a complainant's mark in its entirety may be sufficient to establish confusing similarity, even when combined with additional terms. See Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) ("Where a relevant trademark is recognisable 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.").

 

Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's HONDA 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 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 contends that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name since Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. WHOIS information may be used to determine whether a respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). The WHOIS information for the disputed domain name lists the registrant as "Hendra Tjia". Furthermore, Respondent has not supplied any evidence that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name.

 

Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).

 

Complainant argues that Respondent fails to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or for legitimate noncommercial or fair use.

 

Respondent has used the disputed domain name for a gambling website with no obvious connection to the words in the disputed domain name but with the obvious potential to damage the reputation of Complainant's trademark. The Panel considers that such use of the disputed domain name is not bona fide.

 

Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent does not use the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services or for legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii).

 

Therefore, the Panel concludes that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

The Panel considers that Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract Internet users to its website for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's trademark under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).

 

In the absence of a plausible explanation from the Respondent as to why it has used the disputed domain name for gambling services that have no obvious connection with the disputed domain name, the Panel thinks it reasonable to conclude that most likely Respondent was seeking to take unfair advantage of Complainant's famous and distinctive mark by profiting from traffic intended for Complainant.

 

Furthermore, given that the disputed domain name is closely linked with Complainant and its trademark, Respondent must have known that use of the disputed domain name for gambling was likely to damage the Complainant's reputation.

 

Therefore, the Panel concludes that Respondent has registered, and is using, 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 <honda77.sbs> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

__________________________________________________________________

 

 

 

Adam Taylor, Panelist

Dated: February 19, 2026