Enterprisecarrenter.com

The timeline behind enterprisecarrenter.com

Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.

Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.

NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM DECISION Enterprise Rent-A-Car Company v. LaPorte Holdings, Inc. Claim Number: FA0502000417764 PARTIES Complainant is Enterprise Rent-A-Car Company (“Complainant”), represented by Vicki L. Little, of Schultz & Little, L.L.P., 640 Cepi Drive, Suite A, Chesterfield, MO 63005-1221. Respondent is LaPorte Holdings, Inc. (“Respondent”), 2202 S. Figueroa St. Suite. 721, Los Angeles, CA 90023. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <enterprisecarrenter.com>, registered with Nameking.com, Inc. PANEL The undersigned certifies that he or she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his or her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding. Judge Harold Kalina (Ret.) as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on February 9, 2005; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on February 14, 2005. On February 10, 2005, Nameking.com, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the domain name <enterprisecarrenter.com> is registered with Nameking.com, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Nameking.com, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Nameking.com, Inc. registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain-name disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN's Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy"). On February 16, 2005, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of March 8, 2005 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, was transmitted to Respondent via e-mail, post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts, and to postmaster@enterprisecarrenter.com by e-mail. Having received no Response from Respondent, using the same contact details and methods as were used for the Commencement Notification, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default. On March 14, 2005, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Judge Harold Kalina (Ret.) as Panelist. Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the National Arbitration 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." Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, the National Arbitration 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 makes the following assertions: 1. Respondent’s <enterprisecarrenter.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ENTERPRISE family of marks. 2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <enterprisecarrenter.com> domain name. 3. Respondent registered and used the <enterprisecarrenter.com> domain name in bad faith. B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant, Enterprise Rent-A-Car Company, holds numerous trademark registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office for the ENTERPRISE family of marks (e.g., Reg. No. 1,343,167, issued June 18, 1985; Reg. No. 2,010,290, issued October 22, 1996; Reg. No. 2,010,244, issued October 22, 1996). Complainant has used the ENTERPRISE family of marks continuously since 1985 in connection with its vehicle rental, leasing and sales services. Complainant has also registered the <enterpriserentacar.com> and <enterprise.com> domain names where Internet users can access information regarding Complainant’s products and services. Respondent registered the <enterprisecarrenter.com> domain name on December 20, 2004. Respondent is using the disputed domain name to redirect Internet users to a search engine website where Respondent displays Complainant’s ENTERPRISE mark and offers web links related to rental car services under Complainant’s ENTERPRISE mark in addition to links to advertisements and commercial websites unrelated to Complainant such as mortgages, dating, music and online banking and travel. DISCUSSION Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable." 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(e), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and draw such inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules. 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. Identical and/or Confusingly Similar Complainant has established that it has rights in the ENTERPRISE family of marks through registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office. See Men’s Wearhouse, Inc. v. Wick, FA 117861 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 16, 2002) (“Under U.S. trademark law, registered marks hold a presumption that they are inherently distinctive and have acquired secondary meaning.”); see also Janus Int’l Holding Co. v. Rademacher, D2002-0201 (WIPO Mar. 5, 2002) (finding that Panel decisions have held that registration of a mark is prima facie evidence of validity, which creates a rebuttable presumption that the mark is inherently distinctive. Respondent has the burden of refuting this assumption). The domain name registered by Respondent is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ENTERPRISE family of marks because the domain name incorporates Complainant’s mark in its entirety and deviates from it only by adding the generic or descriptive terms “car” and “renter.” The mere addition of generic or descriptive words that describe Complainant’s business to Complainant’s registered mark does not negate the confusing similarity of Respondent’s domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See L.L. Bean, Inc. v. ShopStar Network, FA 95404 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 14, 2000) (finding that combining the generic word “shop” with Complainant’s registered mark “llbean” does not circumvent Complaint’s rights in the mark nor avoid the confusing similarity aspect of the ICANN Policy); see also Arthur Guinness Son & Co. (Dublin) Ltd. v. Healy/BOSTH, D2001-0026 (WIPO Mar. 23, 2001) (finding confusing similarity where the domain name in dispute contains the identical mark of Complainant combined with a generic word or term); see also Westfield Corp., Inc. v. Hobbs, D2000-0227 (WIPO May 18, 2000) (finding the <westfieldshoppingcenter.com> domain name confusingly similar because the WESTFIELD mark was the dominant element); see also Brown & Bigelow, Inc. v. Rodela, FA 96466 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 5, 2001) (finding that the <hoylecasino.net> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s HOYLE mark, and that the addition of “casino,” a generic word describing the type of business in which Complainant is engaged, does not take the disputed domain name out of the realm of confusing similarity). Furthermore, the addition of the generic top-level domain “.com” does not sufficiently distinguish the disputed domain name from Complainant’s ENTERPRISE mark. See Pomellato S.p.A v. Tonetti, D2000-0493 (WIPO July 7, 2000) (finding <pomellato.com> identical to Complainant’s mark because the generic top-level domain (gTLD) “.com” after the name POMELLATO is not relevant); see also Busy Body, Inc. v. Fitness Outlet Inc., D2000-0127 (WIPO Apr. 22, 2000) ("[T]he addition of the generic top-level domain (gTLD) name ‘.com’ is . . . without legal significance since use of a gTLD is required of domain name registrants."); see also Interstellar Starship Services Ltd. v. EPIX, Inc., 983 F.Supp. 1331, 1335 (D.Or. 1997) (<epix.com> "is the same mark" as EPIX); see also Snow Fun, Inc. v. O'Connor, FA 96578 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 8, 2001) (finding that the domain name <termquote.com> is identical to Complainant’s TERMQUOTE mark). The Panel finds that Complainant fulfilled Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Rights or Legitimate Interests Complainant alleges that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <enterprisecarrenter.com> domain name. The burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests once Complainant establishes a prima facie case pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Due to Respondent’s failure to respond to the Complaint, it is assumed that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. See G.D. Searle v. Martin Mktg., FA 118277 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 1, 2002) (holding that where Complainant has asserted that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the domain name it is incumbent on Respondent to come forward with concrete evidence rebutting this assertion because this information is “uniquely within the knowledge and control of the respondent”); see also Clerical Med. Inv. Group Ltd. v. Clericalmedical.com, D2000-1228 (WIPO Nov. 28, 2000) (finding that under certain circumstances the mere assertion by Complainant that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests is sufficient to shift the burden of proof to Respondent to demonstrate that such a right or legitimate interest does exist); see also Pavillion Agency, Inc. v. Greenhouse Agency Ltd., D2000-1221 (WIPO Dec. 4, 2000) (finding that Respondents’ failure to respond can be construed as an admission that they have no legitimate interests in the domain names). Moreover, the Panel may accept all reasonable allegations and inferences in the Complaint as true because Respondent has not submitted a response. See Talk City, Inc. v. Robertson, D2000-0009 (WIPO Feb. 29, 2000) (“In the absence of a response, it is appropriate to accept as true all allegations of the Complaint.”); see also Vertical Solutions Mgmt., Inc. v. webnet-marketing, Inc., FA 95095 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 31, 2000) (holding that the respondent’s failure to respond allows all reasonable inferences of fact in the allegations of the complainant to be deemed true.); see also Desotec N.V. v. Carbons AB, D2000-1398 (WIPO Dec. 21, 2000) (finding that failing to respond allows a presumption that the complainant’s allegations are true unless clearly contradicted by the evidence). Respondent is using the <enterprisecarrenter.com> domain name to redirect Internet users to a search engine website where Respondent displays Complainant’s ENTERPRISE mark and offers web links to third party rental car services, similar to the rental car services offered by Complainant. Additionally, Respondent also displays links to advertisements and commercial websites unrelated to Complainant such as mortgages, dating, music, online banking and travel. Respondent’s use of a domain name confusingly similar to Complainant’s ENTERPRISE family of marks to redirect Internet users searching under Complainant’s marks to a commercial website that offers similar rental car services is not a use in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and is not a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Am. Online, Inc., v. Fu, D2000-1374 (WIPO Dec. 11, 2000) (“[I]t would be unconscionable to find a bona fide offering of services in a respondent’s operation of a website using a domain name which is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark and for the same business.”); see also Am. Online, Inc. v. Shenzhen JZT Computer Software Co., D2000-0809 (WIPO Sept. 6, 2000) (finding that Respondent’s operation of a website offering essentially the same services as Complainant and displaying Complainant’s mark was insufficient for a finding of bona fide offering of goods or services); see also Avery Dennison Corp. v. Steele, FA 133626 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 10, 2003) (finding that Respondent had no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name where it used Complainant’s mark, without authorization, to attract Internet users to its business, which competed with Complainant). Furthermore, Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the <enterprisecarrenter.com> domain name because Respondent has not presented any evidence, and there is no proof in the record suggesting, that Respondent has established rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Additionally, nothing in the WHOIS domain name registration information suggests that Respondent is known by the domain name or by Complainant’s family of marks. Furthermore, Complainant did not authorize Respondent to use the mark. Thus, Respondent has not established rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Compagnie de Saint Gobain v. Com-Union Corp., D2000-0020 (WIPO Mar. 14, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where Respondent was not commonly known by the mark and never applied for a license or permission from Complainant to use the trademarked name); see also Gallup Inc. v. Amish Country Store, FA 96209 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 23, 2001) (finding that Respondent does not have rights in a domain name when Respondent is not known by the mark). The Panel finds that Complainant fulfilled Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Registration and Use in Bad Faith Respondent is incorporating Complainant’s mark in its domain name in order to lead Internet users to a website that displays Complainant’s logo provides links to various third party rental car dealers and various unrelated commercial websites. The Panel infers that Respondent receives click-through fees for redirecting Internet users to these commercial websites. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is intentionally creating a likelihood of confusion to attract Internet users for Respondent’s commercial gain, pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Am. Online, Inc. v. Tercent Comm. Corp., FA 93668 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 21, 2000) (finding bad faith where Respondent registered and used an infringing domain name to attract users to a website sponsored by Respondent); see also Perot Sys. Corp. v. Perot.net, FA 95312 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 29, 2000) (finding bad faith where the domain name in question was obviously connected with Complainant’s well-known marks, thus creating a likelihood of confusion strictly for commercial gain); see also Luck’s Music Library v. Stellar Artist Mgmt., FA 95650 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 30, 2000) (finding that Respondent had engaged in bad faith use and registration by linking the domain name to a website that offers services similar to Complainant’s services, intentionally attempting to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s marks); see also ESPN, Inc. v. Ballerini, FA 95410 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 15, 2000) (finding bad faith where Respondent linked the domain name to another website <iwin.com>, presumably receiving a portion of the advertising revenue from the site by directing Internet traffic there, thus using a domain name to attract Internet users for commercial gain). Additionally, Respondent registered the domain name for the purpose of disrupting Complainant’s business by redirecting Internet traffic intended for Complainant to Respondent’s website containing Complainant’s logo and where links to similar services are offered. Registration of a domain name for the primary purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See Lubbock Radio Paging v. Venture Tele-Messaging, FA 96102 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 23, 2000) (concluding that domain names were registered and used in bad faith where Respondent and Complainant were in the same line of business in the same market area); see also S. Exposure v. S. Exposure, Inc., FA 94864 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 18, 2000) (finding Respondent acted in bad faith by attracting Internet users to a website that competes with Complainant’s business) The Panel finds that Complainant fulfilled 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 <enterprisecarrenter.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Judge Harold Kalina (Ret.), Panelist Dated: March 28, 2005 Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page. Click Here to return to our Home Page NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM

Source of record: FORUM . Reproduced for research; FORUM is the authoritative source.