Westmore · UDRP DecisionHertzfurlough.com
The Panel ordered transfer of <hertzfurlough.com>. It found the domain confusingly similar to the Complainant's HERTZ trademark because it incorporated HERTZ in its entirety with the term “furlough.” The Respondent lacked rights or legitimate interests, and its use of the domain for sponsored links advertising competing vehicle-rental services supported findings of bad-faith registration and use.
The timeline behind hertzfurlough.com
Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.
Westmore reconstructs the full history behind hertzfurlough.com — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive — as part of UDRP Intelligence:
The decision illustrates how incorporation of an entire recognizable trademark, combined with a commercial pay-per-click page containing links to competitors, can independently shape the analysis across all three UDRP elements. The added term “furlough” did not avoid confusing similarity, while the domain's targeted commercial use supported both the absence of legitimate interests and the finding of bad faith.
Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.
WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Hertz System, Inc. v. Domain Administrator, Fundacion Privacy Services LTD Case No. D2020-3470 1. The Parties The Complainant is Hertz System, Inc., United States of America (“United States”), represented by Ladas & Parry, United States. The Respondent is Domain Administrator, Fundacion Privacy Services LTD, Panama. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <hertzfurlough.com> is registered with Media Elite Holdings Limited dba Register Matrix (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on December 18, 2020. On December 21, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On December 22, 2020, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. The Center verified that 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 January 5, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was January 25, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on February 1, 2021. The Center appointed Fabrizio Bedarida as the sole panelist in this matter on February 16, 2021. 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 in this proceeding, Hertz System, Inc., is a U.S. corporation registered under the law of the state of Delaware, and is a subsidiary of The Hertz Corporation (collectively “Hertz”). Hertz is a leading provider of inter alia vehicle rental and sales services with operations all over the world. The Complainant’s company was founded in 1918 in Chicago. The company’s global headquarters has since moved to Florida, and it has grown to employ nearly 38,000 people across the globe. The Complainant had a total revenue of 9,779 billion dollars in 2019 and was ranked 335th on the Fortune 500 as of 2018. The Complainant first registered its HERTZ mark in 1955, has subsequently registered numerous other HERTZ formative marks, and currently has thousands of locations in more than 150 countries, including 3,000 locations in the United States alone. The Complainant owns numerous domain name registrations comprising the HERTZ mark (and variations thereof), such as <hertz.com>, <car-hertz-rent.com>, <carhertz.net>, <gobyhertz.com>, and <check-hertz.com>, among others. The Complainant has proven to be the owner of the HERTZ trademark. The Complainant is, inter alia, the owner of the following HERTZ trademarks: U.S. trademark HERTZ number 614123, registered on October 11, 1955; EU trademark HERTZ number, 002293512 registered on January 7, 2004; Chinese trademark HERTZ number 1539809, filed (or registered) on March 14, 2001. The disputed domain name <hertzfurlough.com> was registered on April 23, 2020. The disputed domain name resolves to a page featuring pay per click advertising. The Complainant’s trademark registrations predate the registration of the disputed domain name. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant claims that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s 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, paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires 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 HERTZ trademark. The disputed domain name reproduces the HERTZ trademark in its entirety with the addition of the generic term “furlough”. This Panel agrees with the Complainant’s assertion that the addition of the generic term “furlough” in the disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the Complainant’s HERTZ trademark and the disputed domain name. Section 1.8 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”) states: “Where the relevant trademark is recognizable within the disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) would not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element. The nature of such additional term(s) may however bear on assessment of the second and third elements.” Therefore, the Panel finds the disputed domain name to be confusingly similar to the HERTZ trademark 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 a prima facie case that the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent does not appear to be commonly known by the name “hertz furlough” or by any similar name. The Respondent has no connection 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. The website at the disputed domain name is used for advertising other competing vehicle rental services through sponsored links. Finally, the Respondent has not replied to the Complainant’s contentions, claiming 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 The Panel, on the basis of the evidence presented, accepts and agrees with the Complainant’s contentions that the disputed domain name was registered and has been used in bad faith. The Panel finds that the Respondent was more likely than not aware of the renowned HERTZ trademark and of the existence of the Complainant and its activity. This Panel notes that the website at the disputed domain name is used for advertising other competing vehicle rental services through sponsored links. Hence, the registration of the disputed domain name does not seem to be a coincidence, and thus indicates the Respondent’s knowledge of the Complainant’s trademark and activity when registering the disputed domain name. Consequently, the Panel finds that the Respondent knew of the Complainant’s marks and intentionally intended to create an association with the Complainant and its business at the time of the registration of the disputed domain name. Inference of bad faith can also be found in the failure to respond to the cease and desist letter sent by the representative of the Complainant. Further inference of bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name is given by the fact that the Respondent deliberately chose to conceal its identity by means of a privacy protection service. 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 <hertzfurlough.com> be transferred to the Complainant. Fabrizio Bedarida Sole Panelist Date: February 26, 2021
Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.
What Westmore sees around hertzfurlough.com
The decision is only the record. Westmore connects it to the cases, authorities, panelists, parties and domain evidence surrounding it.
A short, grounded explanation drawn only from this decision's record — not legal advice or a prediction.
Grounded in the Westmore record for this decision. Research/informational only — not legal advice or a prediction of any outcome.
The decision is only the beginning.
You've seen what happened. Now discover the deeper intelligence behind the case, the panelist, the parties and the authorities that matter.
Go beyond the public record: see how this case has been cited, find comparable decisions, analyze the panelist and apply the relevant authorities to your Matter.
Westmore Professional · $395/month
Research with UDRP IntelligenceWestmore AI drafts an attorney-review-ready UDRP response from your facts, grounded in the exact panel and closest precedent.
$895 one-time per matter · no subscription required. Self-help drafting aid — not legal advice.
Build your responseWestmore UDRP records draw on WIPO-indexed decisions and are provided for research and informational purposes only. Not legal advice, a clearance opinion, or a prediction of any outcome.