DECISION

 

Tesla, Inc. v. Micha\u0142 Gapi\u0144ski

Claim Number: FA2606002230248

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Tesla, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Anthony Lupo of ArentFox Schiff LLP, District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is Micha\u0142 Gapi\u0144ski ("Respondent"), Poland.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <teslaandroid.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.

 

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.

 

Héctor Ariel Manoff as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on June 30, 2026; Forum received payment on June 30, 2026.

 

On July 2, 2026, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <teslaandroid.com> domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GoDaddy.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, 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 July 14, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 3, 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@teslaandroid.com. Also, on July 14, 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.

 

An informal Response was received on July 14 and August 4, 2026.

 

On August 4, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Héctor Ariel Manoff 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

1- Tesla Inc. owns trademark TESLA in the United States and other countries around the world.

2- Complainant's TESLA trademark has been used continuously since 2003 in connection with goods that include vehicles, battery and solar goods, toys and lifestyle goods.

3- Complainant owns the domain <tesla.com>, in which its trademark and products and services are advertised and promoted.

4- Respondent registered and began using the disputed domain name in bad faith in 2022, decades after Complainant adopted and first used and registered TESLA marks.

5- Respondent has registered and is using the domain name <teslaandroid.com> in bad faith.

6- The disputed domain name comprises Complainant's TESLA mark in its entirety by adding the generic term "android".

7- Respondent has neither rights nor legitimate interest in the disputed domain name.

8- Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. 

 

B. Respondent

1- Respondent filed an informal response on July 14 and August 4, 2026, in which Respondent argued that the public site has been taken down.

2- Respondent wants to avoid confusion but still allowing existing customers to reach Respondent for warranty/support issues.

3- The site has been up for years without interruptions.

4- Respondent has been in touch with Tesla employees to try to settle.

5- Domain names with www.tesla+something.com are common for companies making accessories and an appropriate message not being affiliated has always been present on Respondent's site.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant, Tesla Inc. owns all right, title, and interest in and to the trademark TESLA and has used and registered it in the United States and worldwide since 2003 in connection with goods that include vehicles, battery and solar goods, toys and lifestyle goods. Respondent registered <teslaandroid.com> domain name on November 28, 2022, and is using it in bad faith.

 

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

Complainant owns trademark registrations for TESLA marks in the United States and other countries around the world in connection with goods that include vehicles, battery and solar goods, toys and lifestyle goods since 2003. (Annex A).

 

Complainant also owns a website www.tesla.com, in which its trademark and products and services are advertised and promoted. (Annex C).

 

The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant's TESLA mark and the generic term ANDROID, all with the gTLD ".com". See Microsoft Corporation v. Thong Tran Thanh, FA 1653187 (Forum Jan. 21, 2016) (determining that confusing similarity exists where [a disputed domain name] contains Complainant's entire mark and differs only by the addition of a generic or descriptive phrase and top-level domain, the differences between the domain name and its contained trademark are insufficient to differentiate one from the other for the purposes of the Policy); see also, Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) ("Where a relevant trademark is recognizable 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").

 

The Panel finds that the term TESLA is a fanciful and arbitrary term and that it is clear that Respondent knew it belonged to Complainant. Respondent has just added a generic word. The Panel finds that the domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark since the additional elements are not sufficiently distinctive. (See Microsoft Corporation v. Thong Tran Thanh, FA 1653187 (Forum Jan. 21, 2016) (determining that confusing similarity exists where [a disputed domain name] contains Complainant's entire mark and differs only by the addition of a generic or descriptive phrase and top-level domain, the differences between the domain name and its contained trademark are insufficient to differentiate one from the other for the purposes of the Policy); see also, Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) ("Where a relevant trademark is recognizable 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").

 

This Panel finds that Complainant has proved trademark rights on TESLA and the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to that trademark.

 

The Panel finds that the domain name is almost identical and confusingly similar to Complainant marks under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant argues Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name because Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and Complainant has never licensed rights to or authorized Respondent to use the TESLA mark.

 

In addition, the Panel finds that Respondent acknowledges in his informal response "not being affiliated" with Complainant.

 

On the other hand, Respondent uses the disputed domain name to offer for sale aftermarket products that interfere with Complainant's proprietary vehicle software. The Panel agrees with Complainant that the sale of products designed to circumvent and modify the proprietary software systems of Complainant's vehicles does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services.

 

In addition, Respondent's use of the TESLA mark fails the test articulated in Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ASD, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2001-0903. Under Oki Data, to qualify for nominative fair use, a respondent must: (1) actually offer the goods or services at issue; (2) use the mark only to describe the goods or services; (3) accurately disclose the registrant's relationship with the trademark owner; and (4) not try to corner the market in domain names reflecting the mark.

 

Respondent has not submitted evidence to prove the cited facts.

 

This Panel finds that Respondent's use of the disputed domain names does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) because Respondent has not met the test for a reseller according to Oki Data Ams., Inc. v. ASD, Inc., D2001-0903 (WIPO Nov. 6, 2001).

 

The Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the <teslaandroid.com> domain name. Under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), relevant WHOIS information, among other evidence, may demonstrate that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. See Chevron Intellectual Property LLC v. Fred Wallace, FA 1626022 (Forum July 27, 2015) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <chevron-europe.com> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), as the WHOIS information named "Fred Wallace" as registrant of the disputed domain name).

 

In this case, according to the information provided, Respondent is mentioned as Micha\u0142 Gapi\u0144ski. Thus, the Panel concludes that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).

 

Further, there is no evidence to suggest Respondent was authorized, licensed rights to, or otherwise permitted to use the TESLA mark.

 

Respondent has neither refuted nor submitted evidence on the contrary.

 

According to the evidence submitted (Exhibit E), Respondent's use of the <teslaandroid.com> domain is not a bona fide offering of goods. The website includes Complainant's trademark and products.

 

This Panel finds that the purpose of the disputed domain name is to try to show that the disputed domain name is associated with Complainant and that Respondent is not using the domain name in connection with a legitimate noncommercial use or fair use under Policy 4(c)(iii).

 

Therefore, the Panel agrees that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name does not have legitimate interest under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

The domain name's registration by Respondent was done after Complainant's domain name <tesla.com> and TESLA trademarks had been registered. (Annexes A and C).

 

The disputed domain name was registered on November 28, 2022 (Annex D).

 

The Panel also points out that the disputed domain name <teslaandroid.com>, includes Complainant's trademark along with a generic term and the gTLD ".com".

 

According to the evidence provided by Complainant (Annex E), which was not refuted by Respondent, the disputed domain name redirects to a webpage that includes Complainant's trademark and stylized logo and the offer of products that are designed to interfere with and modify Complainant's proprietary vehicle software systems.

 

Thus, it is clear for this Panel that the registration of the domain name was done with Complainant's marks in mind. It is clear for the Panel that at the time of registration, the defendant already knew that the Tesla brand existed, based on the defendant's own arguments. Registration was done in bad faith as well as the use of it.

 

The Panel concludes that Respondent has the intention of creating an association with Complainant and its products and has registered the domain name with the intent to attract and divert Internet users to the corresponding websites for its own benefit. See Carey Int'l, Inc. v. Kogan, FA 486191 (Forum July 29, 2005) ("[T]he Panel finds that Respondent is capitalizing on the confusing similarity of its domain names to benefit from the valuable goodwill that Complainant has established in its marks. Consequently, it is found that Respondent registered and used the domain names in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).");

 

The Panel determines that Respondent registered and used 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 <teslaandroid.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

Héctor Ariel Manoff, Panelist

Dated: August 12, 2026