DECISION

 

American Honda Motor Co., Inc. v. olxgg official

Claim Number: FA2601002201290

 

PARTIES

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

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <astra-honda.vip>, registered with NameCheap, 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 January 22, 2026; Forum received payment on January 22, 2026.

 

On January 23, 2026, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <astra-honda.vip> 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@astra-honda.vip. 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 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 wholly owned subsidiary of the Japanese corporation Honda Motor Co., Ltd., one of the world's leading automobile companies. Complainant holds the exclusive right to use and protect the trademarks belonging to Honda Motor Co., Ltd. in the United States. Honda Motor Co., Ltd. is the owner of numerous U.S. trademark registrations for HONDA (e.g., Reg. No. 826,779, registered April 4, 1967) based on registration with the USPTO. As a result of Complainant's substantial promotion and marketing efforts, along with the extensive use of its HONDA mark, the mark is recognized by the consuming public as being associated solely with Complainant and represents valuable goodwill owned by Complainant. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark because it fully incorporates the HONDA mark, merely adding the generic term "astra," a hyphen, and the ".vip" gTLD.

 

ii) Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is neither licensed nor authorized to use Complainant's mark, and is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Respondent does not use the disputed domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services, or for legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Rather, Respondent uses the disputed domain name to redirect Internet users to an online casino and gambling site that uses Complainant's "WING" design mark and HONDA mark.

 

iii) Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. In light of the substantial fame and notoriety of the HONDA mark, as well as Complainant's longstanding use and promotion of its distinctive and unique HONDA mark, there is no plausible good faith reason for Respondent to have registered the disputed domain name other than to trade on the consumer recognition and goodwill of the HONDA mark. Respondent's use of the disputed domain name for an apparent gambling website evidences bad faith registration and use. Respondent selected the disputed domain name to unfairly benefit from consumer confusion and to increase profits from misdirected Internet traffic. Respondent had, at the very least, constructive notice of Complainant's trademark rights.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent did not submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

1. The disputed domain name was registered on December 17, 2025.

 

2. Complainant has established rights in the HONDA mark (e.g., Reg. No. 826,779, registered April 4, 1967) based on its registration with the USPTO.

 

3. The disputed domain name resolves to an online casino and gambling site that uses Complainant's "WING" design mark and HONDA mark.

 

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 contends that it has the exclusive right to use and protect the trademarks belonging to Honda Motor Co., Ltd. in the United States, and that Honda Motor Co., Ltd. owns numerous HONDA marks (e.g., Reg. No. 826,779, registered April 4, 1967) based on their registration with the USPTO. Complainant has provided evidence of the registration of the HONDA mark with the USPTO. Therefore, the Panel finds that Complainant has established rights in the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Complainant contends that the disputed domain name <astra-honda.vip> is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark, as it fully incorporates the HONDA mark, merely adding the generic term "astra," a hyphen, and the ".vip" gTLD. The addition of a generic and/or descriptive term, a hyphen, and/or a gTLD to a complainant's mark does not sufficiently differentiate a disputed domain name from the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Empowered Medical Solutions, Inc. d/b/a QRS-Direct and QRS Magnovit AG v. NULL NULL / QUANTRON RESONANCE SYSTEMS / JIM ANDERSON / HTR / unknown HTR / HTR, FA 1784937 (Forum June 8, 2018) ("Adding or removing descriptive terms or a gTLD is insufficient to differentiate a disputed domain name from a complainant's mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)."); see also MTD Products Inc v J Randall Shank, FA 1783050 (Forum June 27, 2018) ("The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark as it wholly incorporates the CUB CADET mark before appending the generic terms 'genuine' and 'parts' as well as the '.com' gTLD."). The Panel thus finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the 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 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 "olxgg official" 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 also 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, as Respondent uses the disputed domain name to redirect users seeking Complainant to an apparent gambling website. Complainant provides a screenshot of the website to which the disputed domain name resolves, i.e., an online casino and gambling site that uses Complainant's "WING" design mark and HONDA mark.

 

The Panel finds that Respondent's use of Complainant's mark, and the goodwill associated with it, to attract Internet users to an unrelated business does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services. See UUL Labs, Inc. v. Harry L. Werner, FA 1880938 (Forum Mar. 10, 2020) ("Additionally, Complainant alleges Respondent fails to make a bona fide offering or goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use because Respondent attempts to disrupt Complainant's business by diverting internet users to a scam website where it sells unauthorized products. Use of a domain name to disrupt complainant's business in order to sell unauthorized products may be evidence that a respondent does not make a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of a disputed domain name under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii).")

 

The Panel finds that Complainant has established a prima facie case arising from the considerations above. These matters collectively establish a prima facie case against Respondent. As Respondent has neither filed a Response nor attempted by any other means to rebut the prima facie case against it, 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's use of the disputed domain name for an apparent gambling website evidences bad faith registration and use. Respondent selected the disputed domain name to unfairly benefit from consumer confusion and to increase profits from misdirected Internet traffic.

 

As noted earlier, Respondent uses the disputed domain name to redirect users to an online casino and gambling site that uses Complainant's "WING" design mark and HONDA mark. The Panel finds that Respondent's use of the disputed domain name to exploit the goodwill associated with Complainant's HONDA mark disrupts Complainant's business by diverting Internet users seeking Complainant for commercial gain, thereby disrupting Complainant's business, and thus constitutes bad faith registration and use per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Todd McFarlane and TMP International LLC v. tim wang, FA 2073747 (January 1, 2024) ("Respondent disrupted Complainant's business by diverting users to its purported scam commercial website to sell products unrelated to the Complainant's business. The Panel finds that Respondent uses the disputed domain name to attempt to redirect Internet users by passing itself off as Complainant for commercial gain, and thus Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith.").

 

Complainant also contends that Respondent had, at the very least, constructive notice of Complainant's trademark rights at the time of its registration of the disputed domain name. To support this assertion, Complainant highlights that it has been using its HONDA mark for over fifty-eight years and obtained U.S. Trademark Registration No. 826,779 for the HONDA mark in connection with land vehicles and engines on April 4, 1967.

 

Although panels have generally not considered constructive notice sufficient for a finding of bad faith, actual knowledge of a complainant's rights in the mark prior to the registration of a disputed domain name is enough to establish bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Bluegreen Corp. v. eGo, FA 128793 (Forum Dec. 16, 2002) (finding bad faith where the method by which the respondent acquired the disputed domain names indicated that the respondent was well aware that the domain names incorporated marks in which the complainant had rights); see also Yahoo! Inc. v. Butler, FA 744444 (Forum Aug. 17, 2006) (finding bad faith where the respondent was "well-aware" of the complainant's YAHOO! mark at the time of registration).

 

The Panel notes that Complainant's parent company 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 globally. In the fiscal year ending March 31, 2025, Complainant sold 28 million product units across the globe, with sales in Asia, North America, Europe, the Middle East, and Africa. Complainant's sales revenue in the fiscal year ending March 31, 2025, was estimated to be 21,688 billion yen (approximately $1.44 billion USD). The trusted research and nonprofit organization for consumers, Consumer Reports, ranked Complainant's HONDA as the fifth most reliable car brand in 2025.

 

Given the manner of use of the disputed domain name and the notoriety of Complainant's HONDA mark, the Panel infers that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in its mark at the time of its registration of the disputed domain name, supporting a finding of bad faith registration 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 <astra-honda.vip> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq., Panelist

Dated: February 18, 2026