DECISION

 

AMSOIL Inc. v. no / lar frank

Claim Number: FA2606002224960

 

PARTIES

Complainant is AMSOIL Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by John P. Olson of Merchant & Gould, P.C., New York, USA. Respondent is no / lar frank ("Respondent"), Philippines.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <amsoilsale.com>, registered with NameSilo, LLC.

 

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 June 2, 2026; Forum received payment on June 2, 2026.

 

On June 3, 2026, NameSilo, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <amsoilsale.com> domain name is registered with NameSilo, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. NameSilo, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameSilo, LLC 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 June 5, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of June 25, 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@amsoilsale.com. Also on June 5, 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 June 26, 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 leading provider of synthetic lubricants, filtration products, fuel additives, automotive maintenance products, and related goods and services. Complainant first adopted the AMSOIL marks in the United States at least as early as 1976. Through decades of extensive advertising, promotion, sponsorship activities, and sales under the AMSOIL marks, consumers have come to recognize the AMSOIL marks as identifying Complainant and its products and services. Complainant owns registrations for the AMSOIL word and stylized marks, inter alia, the USPTO registration for the AMSOIL word mark (e.g., Reg. No. 3,352,070, registered December 11, 2007 in Class 1). The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the AMSOIL mark, as it incorporates the mark in its entirety with the mere addition of the descriptive term "sale," and the ".com" gTLD.

 

ii) Respondent lacks any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor has Complainant granted Respondent any license or authorization to use Complainant's marks in connection with the disputed domain name. Respondent is not making a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor is the disputed domain name being used for any legitimate noncommercial or fair use purpose. Rather, Respondent is using the disputed domain name to carry out a deceptive scheme aimed at consumers seeking AMSOIL and products offered under the AMSOIL marks, diverting them to a fake website that seeks to profit from purported sales of goods bearing the AMSOIL mark to confused consumers. Respondent has used the disputed domain name in connection with a fraudulent phishing scheme or a website designed to impersonate Complainant and deceive consumers seeking AMSOIL products.

 

iii) Given the fame and longstanding use of the AMSOIL marks, coupled with Respondent's use of the disputed domain name to operate a website that copies Complainant's branding, trademarks, copyrighted images, and product information, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's trademark rights when registering the disputed domain name. Such actual knowledge is compelling evidence of bad faith registration and use. Moreover, Respondent has used the disputed domain name to divert Internet users seeking AMSOIL to a fraudulent website that falsely purports to be affiliated with, or authorized by, Complainant. Respondent acted in bad faith by intentionally attempting to attract Internet users to its website for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with the AMSOIL marks.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent did not submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

1. The disputed domain name was registered on April 29, 2026.

 

2. Complainant has established rights in the AMSOIL word and stylized marks, inter alia, including the USPTO registration for the AMSOIL word mark (e.g., Reg. No. 3,352,070, registered December 11, 2007 in Class 1).

 

3. The disputed domain name resolves to a website that prominently displays the AMSOIL marks, copies AMSOIL's branding, copyrighted images, and product information, and closely mimics the appearance and functionality of Complainant's official website.

 

4. The website at the disputed domain name purports to offer AMSOIL products for sale.

 

5. The website at the disputed domain name incorporates a checkout function through which website users can enter their personal and payment information.

 

6. There is no disclaimer of any commercial connection with Complainant.

 

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 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

Complainant asserts rights in the AMSOIL word and stylized marks, inter alia, including the USPTO registration for the AMSOIL word mark (e.g., Reg. No. 3,352,070, registered December 11, 2007 in Class 1). Complainant has submitted evidence demonstrating the registration of the AMSOIL marks. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has established rights in the AMSOIL marks under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Complainant argues that the disputed domain name <amsoilsale.com> is confusingly similar to its AMSOIL mark, as it incorporates the mark in its entirety with only the addition of the descriptive term "sale" and the ".com" gTLD. The Panel agrees that the mere addition of a descriptive term and a gTLD to Complainant's mark does not diminish confusing similarity, and thus concludes that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's 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 Overview 3.1 ("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 unmasked WHOIS data lists "no / lar frank" 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 asserts that Respondent is not using the disputed domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services, nor for any legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Respondent impersonates Complainant by prominently featuring the AMSOIL marks, and the disputed domain name is being used for phishing purposes.

 

The Panel observes that under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii), passing off as Complainant does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See hipChain, Inc. v. 谢东东 / 谢东东, FA 1785189 (Forum June 21, 2018) ("The resolving webpages between Complainant's and Respondent's websites are virtually the same. Respondent's use of the disputed domain name does not confer rights and legitimate interests under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii)."); see also Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Inversiones HP Milenium C.A., FA 105775 (Forum Apr. 12, 2002) ("Respondent's use of the confusingly similar domain name [<hpmilenium.com>] to sell counterfeit versions of Complainant's [HP] products is not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i).").

 

The Panel specifically notes that Complainant provides screenshots of both Complainant's official website and the resolving webpage at the disputed domain name, which prominently displays the AMSOIL marks, copies AMSOIL's branding, copyrighted images, and product information, closely mimics the appearance and functionality of Complainant's official website, and purports to offer competing goods.

 

The Panel further notes that Complainant contends that Respondent has used the disputed domain name in connection with a fraudulent phishing scheme or a website designed to impersonate Complainant and deceive consumers seeking AMSOIL products. Although the Panel could not verify Complainant's assertion in connection with a fraudulent phishing scheme from the screenshot of the website at the disputed domain name, the Panel notes that the website at the disputed domain name incorporates a checkout function through which website users can enter their personal and payment information.

 

The Panel finds that Respondent's fraudulent use of the disputed domain name to pass itself off as Complainant does not constitute a use in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor is it a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).

 

Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has established a prima facie case. All of these circumstances support a finding that a prima facie case has been made against Respondent. As Respondent has failed to submit a Response or otherwise rebut the prima facie case, the Panel concludes that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Complainant asserts that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent registered the disputed domain name to impersonate Complainant or to create a false impression of affiliation with Complainant. The disputed domain name is being used for phishing purposes.

 

When a respondent uses a disputed domain name to impersonate a complainant, such conduct may constitute a bad faith disruption of 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 previously noted, Complainant provides a screenshot of the resolving webpage to which the disputed domain name directs, which prominently displays the AMSOIL marks, copies AMSOIL's branding, copyrighted images, and product information, closely mimics the appearance and functionality of Complainant's official website, purports to offer AMSOIL products for sale, and incorporates a checkout function through which website users can enter their personal and payment information. There is no disclaimer of any commercial connection with Complainant.

 

The Panel finds that such passing off activities constitute a disruption of Complainant's business under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). In addition, Respondent uses the disputed domain name for commercial gain by redirecting Internet users seeking Complainant to Respondent's own website, thereby creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's marks. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv).

 

Additionally, Complainant contends that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the AMSOIL marks. The Panel finds that Complainant first adopted the AMSOIL marks in the United States at least as early as 1976. Through decades of extensive advertising, promotion, sponsorship activities, and sales under the AMSOIL marks, consumers have come to recognize the AMSOIL marks as identifying Complainant and its products and services, such as synthetic lubricants, filtration products, fuel additives, automotive maintenance products, and related goods and services.

 

Given the notoriety of the AMSOIL marks and Respondent's conduct in passing itself off as Complainant by displaying the AMSOIL marks and product imagery, and copying the layout almost exactly from Complainant's website, the Panel infers that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the AMSOIL marks 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 <amsoilsale.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq., Panelist

Dated: June 26, 2026