DECISION

 

AMSOIL Inc. v. no / lar frank

Claim Number: FA2607002236646

 

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 <amsoilusshop.com> (the "Disputed Domain Name"), 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.

 

David L. Kreider, Chartered Arbitrator (UK), as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum on July 31, 2026; Forum received payment on July 31, 2026.

 

On August 3, 2026, NameSilo, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <amsoilusshop.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").

 

Complainant submitted an Amended Complaint on August 4, 2026, following the Registrar's disclosure of the underlying registrant information.

 

On August 5, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 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@amsoilusshop.com. Also on August 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 August 26, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed David L. Kreider 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 alleges:

 

That it is a leading provider of synthetic lubricants, filtration products, fuel additives, and automotive maintenance products, sold under the AMSOIL mark since at least 1976 in the United States and internationally, through its website at <amsoil.com> and a network of dealers and distributors. Complainant owns numerous United States trademark registrations for AMSOIL in word and stylized form (collectively, the "AMSOIL Marks"), the earliest being U.S. Reg. No. 1,474,708, registered February 2, 1988, together with common-law rights arising from decades of use.

 

That the Disputed Domain Name <amsoilusshop.com> is confusingly similar to the AMSOIL Marks because it incorporates the AMSOIL mark in its entirety and merely appends the descriptive terms "us" and "shop," which suggest an official United States online store of Complainant rather than distinguishing the Disputed Domain Name from the mark, and that the ".com" gTLD is immaterial to the analysis.

 

That Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. Respondent is not commonly known by it, and Complainant has never licensed or authorized Respondent to use the AMSOIL Marks. The website resolving from the Disputed Domain Name displays Complainant's trademarks, branding, and copyrighted product images, mimics the look and layout of Complainant's official website, and purports to offer AMSOIL products for sale as though it were an authorized source, which is neither a bona fide offering nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii). Complainant further alleges, on information and belief, that Respondent uses the website for phishing, the collection of consumer information, or other fraudulent conduct.

 

That Respondent registered and is using the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith. Given the fame and decades of use of the AMSOIL Marks and Respondent's reproduction of Complainant's branding on the resolving website, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights when it registered the Disputed Domain Name on or about July 1, 2026, and its diversion of consumers to a website that impersonates Complainant and purports to sell the same goods disrupts Complainant's business under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and attracts Internet users for commercial gain through a likelihood of confusion under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

The Panel finds the following:

 

Complainant, AMSOIL Inc. of Superior, Wisconsin, manufactures and sells synthetic lubricants, filtration products, fuel additives, and related automotive maintenance goods under the AMSOIL mark. The record contains United States Patent and Trademark Office records for six registrations of the AMSOIL mark on the Principal Register, in word and stylized form, each in Complainant's name, the earliest being U.S. Reg. No. 1,474,708, registered February 2, 1988, for synthetic lubricating oils and filters, and U.S. Reg. No. 3,352,070, registered December 11, 2007, for lubricants, additives, cleaners, and filters, reciting first use in commerce as early as 1976; four further registrations issued between 2009 and 2019 cover the stylized mark for the same goods and extend the word mark to drinkware and apparel, sponsorship services, and toys. The older registrations have been renewed. Screenshots captured July 31, 2026 show Complainant's online store at <amsoil.com>, headed by the AMSOIL logo under the title "AMSOIL | Online Store for Premium Synthetic Lubricants - AMSOIL." The record contains no sales, advertising, or survey evidence. The Panel accepts, on the uncontested record, that the AMSOIL mark has been in continuous use since the 1970s and is well established in its field, but makes no finding that the mark is famous.

 

The WHOIS record captured July 31, 2026 shows that the Disputed Domain Name was created on July 1, 2026, that it is registered with NameSilo, LLC, and that the registrant of record was then a privacy service, PrivacyGuardian.org of Phoenix, Arizona. The Registrar's verification of August 3, 2026 discloses the underlying registrant as "no / lar frank," with the single word "makati" for a street address in Manila, Philippines, and confirms that the Registration Agreement is in English. Nothing in the record suggests that Respondent has been known by the name AMSOIL or by the Disputed Domain Name, and Complainant's statement that it has never licensed or authorized Respondent to use the AMSOIL Marks stands uncontested.

 

Screenshots captured July 31, 2026 show that the Disputed Domain Name resolves to an online store (the "Respondent's Website") presented as Complainant's own. Its page title reads "AMSOIL | Discount Store for Premium Synthetic Lubricants - AMSOIL"; the AMSOIL logo heads the page; and the home page reproduces the "Engineered for What You Ride" banner, the "Shop by Vehicle" row, and the "Shop by Equipment" grid that appear on Complainant's site. Under the announcement "Summer Sale Is On | All Items 70% OFF Storewide," the Respondent's Website lists AMSOIL-branded motor oils, diesel oils, fuel additives, and filters, illustrated with Complainant's product photographs, at list prices struck through and reduced by seventy percent, so that AMSOIL Signature Series 5W-40 diesel oil listed at $17.19 is offered at $5.16. A "Testimonials" section reproduces, name for name, the three customer and partner endorsements displayed on Complainant's own site. The footer invites newsletter sign-ups, displays major card and PayPal payment marks, and reads "Copyright 2026 © Amsoilusshop.Com." Nothing on the pages in evidence identifies the operator of the Respondent's Website, states a physical address, or disclaims a connection with Complainant.

 

The Complaint alleges, on information and belief, that Respondent uses the Disputed Domain Name for phishing or the collection of consumer information. The record contains no fraudulent e-mail, no evidence of mail-exchange configuration, and no page soliciting credentials or personal information beyond the shopping-cart and newsletter sign-up features of an ordinary retail site; the Panel makes no finding on that question. What the record does show is a storefront that passes itself off as Complainant's.

 

On this record, and on Respondent's default, the Panel finds that Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name with knowledge of Complainant and the AMSOIL Marks and has used it to hold the Respondent's Website out to consumers as a discount online store of 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's rights in the AMSOIL mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) rest on the registrations on the Principal Register of the United States Patent and Trademark Office described in the FINDINGS, the earliest of which issued on February 2, 1988. A nationally registered trademark prima facie satisfies the threshold requirement of trademark rights under the first element. See WIPO Overview 3.1, ¶ 1.2.1.

 

The Disputed Domain Name <amsoilusshop.com> reproduces the AMSOIL mark in full and adds the terms "us" and "shop." The mark is the first and dominant element of the string and remains readily recognizable within it. The additions do not distinguish the Disputed Domain Name from the mark: "us" is a common abbreviation for the United States, where Complainant is based, and "shop" describes the retail sale of the very goods for which the mark is registered. See Steelcase Inc. v. Barbara Blue, FA 2172115 (Forum Sept. 10, 2025) (finding <steelcaseus.com> confusingly similar to the STEELCASE mark; the addition of an abbreviation or common term to a protected mark fails to sufficiently distinguish the domain name for purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)).

 

The ".com" gTLD is a technical requirement of registration and is disregarded in the confusing similarity analysis. See WIPO Overview 3.1, ¶ 1.11.1.

 

The Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant's AMSOIL mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name, whereupon the burden of production shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of such rights or interests. See WIPO Overview 3.1, ¶ 2.1.

 

The registrant disclosed by the Registrar is "no / lar frank," a name bearing no relation to the Disputed Domain Name, and the record shows no use by Respondent of "AMSOIL" or "AMSOIL US Shop" as a name of its own. Complainant has not licensed or authorized Respondent to use the AMSOIL Marks. Respondent is therefore not commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Novo Nordisk A/S v. aditi sharma, FA 2227366 (Forum July 9, 2026) (respondent not commonly known by the disputed domain name where the WHOIS information listed an unrelated personal name and the complainant had not authorized use of its mark).

 

Nor does Respondent's use of the Disputed Domain Name confer rights or legitimate interests. The Respondent's Website, as found above, is Complainant's store copied and re-priced under Complainant's mark, with no indication of who stands behind it. That is impersonation of Complainant, not trade under a name of Respondent's own, and it is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Guitar Center, Inc. v. Eveline Simon, FA 2150637 (Forum May 14, 2025) (use of <guitarcentershop.com> to address a website purporting to sell products of the kind offered by the complainant was "neither indicative of a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor of a non-commercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)").

 

Complainant has made out its prima facie case, and Respondent, having filed no Response, has come forward with nothing to rebut it. The Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name on July 1, 2026, thirty-eight years after Complainant's earliest registration of the AMSOIL mark issued. AMSOIL is not a dictionary word and, on the uncontested record, denotes Complainant and nothing else, and the Respondent's Website, assembled within weeks of registration from Complainant's own materials, leaves no room for a finding that the string was chosen in ignorance of the mark. The Panel finds that Respondent knew of Complainant and the AMSOIL Marks when it registered the Disputed Domain Name and selected the name so that it would be read as Complainant's. See WIPO Overview 3.1, ¶ 3.1.4; Lemon Inc. v. Sumer Singh, FA 2110519 (Forum Sept. 5, 2024) (actual knowledge of the complainant's rights, shown by the notoriety of the mark and the respondent's use of the domain name, suffices to establish bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)).

 

By operating a storefront that holds itself out as Complainant's discount outlet, under a domain name containing Complainant's mark, Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract Internet users to the Respondent's Website for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with the AMSOIL Marks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of that website and of the goods offered on it, within Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Target Brands, Inc. v. yumyoo yum, FA 2108641 (Forum Aug. 22, 2024) (bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where the resolving webpage displayed the complainant's mark and logo to attract Internet users for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion). The same conduct draws consumers looking for Complainant's goods to a competing point of sale, and so disrupts Complainant's business within Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). Whether Respondent ships genuine product, counterfeit product, or nothing at all, the record does not disclose and the Panel need not decide: the offer itself is the bad-faith use. See CCL Label, Inc. v. tu he, FA 2221416 (Forum June 12, 2026) (registration of <averyusa.shop> with at least partially fictitious registration information, and its use for a misleading website passing off as the complainant to promote competing and likely counterfeit or nonexistent products, indicative of bad faith registration and use).

 

Two further circumstances corroborate that conclusion. Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name behind a privacy service, and the identity the Registrar disclosed, "no / lar frank" at an address consisting of the single word "makati," is on its face incomplete and, the Panel infers, fictitious. Neither circumstance is bad faith in itself, but each is consistent with the conduct the Panel has found, and neither has been explained.

 

The Panel finds that Respondent 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 <amsoilusshop.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

David L. Kreider, Panelist

Dated: August 26, 2026