The Complainant is American Honda Motor Co., Inc., United States of America (“United States”), represented by Phillips Ryther & Winchester, United States of America.
The Respondent is Perfect Privacy, LLC, United States of America / Milen Radumilo, Romania. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on October 4, 2019. On October 7, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On October 7, 2019, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on October 8, 2019 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amendment to the Complaint on October 11, 2019. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”). In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on October 22, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was November 11, 2019. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on November 12, 2019. The Center appointed Fabrizio Bedarida as the sole panelist in this matter on November 29, 2019. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7. 4. Factual Background The Complainant is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Honda Motor Co., Ltd., a Japanese corporation. Honda Motor Co., Ltd. is a publicly traded company and listed on the New York Stock Exchange and the Tokyo Stock Exchange, among other stock exchanges. The Complainant has the exclusive right to use trademarks belonging to Honda Motor Co., Ltd. in the United States and the right to sue for violations of Honda Motor Co., Ltd.’s rights. Honda Patents & Technologies North America, LLC (“HPT”) is a California limited liability company and a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Complainant. HPT holds the intellectual property of the Complainant. The Complainant is one of the world’s largest motorcycle manufacturer one of, the world’s largest engine maker, one of the world’s leading automakers, and one of the best-known and well-respected companies on the planet. The Complainant develops, manufactures, and distributes a wide variety of products, ranging from small, general-purpose engines and scooters to specialty sports cars, personal watercraft and jet airplanes. Since the 1980s, the Complainant has sold luxury automobiles in the US and Canada through its Acura division. The division’s accolades include a series of award-winning and bestselling automobiles, including the Acura Legend sedan, the Acura Integra sport coupe and sedan, the Acura MDX luxury sport utility vehicle, and the Acura RDX compact sport utility vehicle. The Complainant has continuously used the ACURA marks in connection with the promotion, advertising, and sale of Acura automobiles and of related goods and services. The Complainant has proven to be the owner of the ACURA mark. The Complainant is inter alia the owner of US trademark no. 1,407,602 ACURA, registered on September 2, 1986. The disputed domain name was registered on March 24, 2017 and for a certain period of time it was used to display pay-per-click advertising links, then to resolve to volvocars.com, Volvo’s official U.S. website, and then to resolve to The disputed domain name is also advertised for sale for USD9,888 on The Complainant claims that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s ACURA registered trademark; that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests whatsoever with respect to the disputed domain name; and that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings In order for the Complainant to obtain a transfer of the disputed domain name, paragraphs 4(a)(i)–(iii) of the Policy require that the Complainant must demonstrate to the Panel that: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and (ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and (iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainant has established rights in the ACURA trademark. The disputed domain name This Panel agrees with the Complainant’s assertion and previous UDRP panels’ view that the addition of the geographic term “USA” does not dispel the confusing similarity arising from the incorporation of the Complainant’s trademark in the disputed domain name. In fact, it has already been held by previous UDRP panels that the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) would not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between a domain name and a complainant’s trademark. Indeed, the Complainant’s trademark is clearly recognizable in the disputed domain name. See section 1.8 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”). Therefore, the Panel finds the disputed domain name to be confusingly similar to the trademark ACURA in which the Complainant has rights. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests This Panel finds that the Complainant has made out a prima facie case that the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent has no connection to or affiliation with the Complainant, and the Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized the Respondent to use or register any domain name incorporating the Complainant’s trademark. The Respondent does not appear to make any legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name, nor any use in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. In addition, the Respondent does not appear to be commonly known by the disputed domain name or by a similar name. Moreover, the Respondent has not replied to the Complainant’s contentions to claim any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Based on the evidence put forward by the Complainant, the Panel is of the opinion that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s trademark registrations and rights to the ACURA mark when the Respondent registered the disputed domain name. In fact, the Complainant’s trademark is a well-known trademark which has been registered and used for many years. It enjoys a widespread reputation and a high degree of recognition. In addition, the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to resolve to websites advertising competing automobiles for sale via pay-per-click advertising links and/or via a competing manufacturer’s official website demonstrates bad faith use pursuant to the Policy. Further inference of bad faith registration and use is given by the Respondent’s conduct in offering the disputed domain name for sale for USD9,888. As the Complainant has also pointed out, offering to sell a domain name incorporating a trademark for a price in gross excess of the respondent’s out-of-pocket registration costs constitutes at least an inference of bad faith registration and use. Finally, this same the Respondent appears to have been the losing party in a great number of prior UDRP proceedings. The Respondent’s clear pattern of conduct in abusively registering domain names corresponding to and/or containing third parties’ registered trademarks definitely shows his bad faith in registering and also using the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the Panel finds, on the basis of the evidence presented, that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. Therefore, the Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy. 7. Decision For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain name Fabrizio Bedarida
Sole Panelist
Date: December 11, 2019
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy