Enterpise.net

The timeline behind enterpise.net

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. Kentech Company Ltd. Claim Number: FA 0503000445505 PARTIES Complainant is Enterprise Rent-A-Car Company (“Complainant”), is represented by Vicki L. Little, of Schultz and Little, L.L.P. 640 Cepi Drive, Suite A, Chesterfield, MO, 63005-1221. Respondent is Kentech Company Ltd ("Respondent"), 1st Floor Muya House Kenyatta Ave. P.O. Box 427630100 Eldoret, KE 30100 KE. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <enterpise.net>, registered with Intercosmos Media Group, Inc. d/b/a Directnic.com. 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. The Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.) as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on March 23, 2005; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on March 25, 2005. On March 24, 2005, Intercosmos Media Group Inc. d/b/a Directnic.com, confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the domain name <enterpise.net> is registered with Intercosmos Media Group Inc. d/b/a Directnic.com, and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Intercosmos Media Group Inc. d/b/a Directnic.com has verified that Respondent is bound by the Intercosmos Media Group Inc. d/b/a Directnic.com 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 March 28, 2005, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of April 18, 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@enterpise.net 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 April 27, 2005 pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed the Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (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 <enterpise.net> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ENTERPRISE mark. 2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <enterpise.net> domain name. 3. Respondent registered and used the <enterpise.net> domain name in bad faith. B. Respondent failed to submit a response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant, Enterprise Rent-A-Car, is a nationally known company that has been doing business under the ENTERPRISE mark since 1985. Complainant engages in the business of automotive fleet management services, vehicle rental and leasing services, automobile repair services, and automobile dealership services. Complainant holds trademark registrations with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) for the ENTERPRISE mark (e.g. Reg. No. 1,343,167 issued June 18, 1985 and and Reg. No. 2,052,192 issued April 15, 1997). Complainant registered the <enterpriserentacar.com> domain name on August 20, 1996, and the <enterprise.com> domain name on June 1, 1998, both with Network Solutions, Inc. Respondent registered the <enterpise.net> domain name on September 30, 2004. Respondent’s domain name resolves to a website that provides links that lead Internet users to Complainant’s competitors and other unrelated commercial sites. 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 mark through registration with the USPTO and through continuous use of the mark in commerce since 1985. 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 and that Respondent has the burden of refuting this assumption). The <enterpise.net> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ENTERPRISE registered trademark because the disputed domain name merely removes the letter “r” from the mark and adds the “.net” generic top-level domain. The intentional misspelling of a famous mark, a form of “typosquatting,” and the addition of a generic top-level domain do not distinguish the domain name from the mark. Respondent’s typosquatting results in a domain name that is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Rollerblade, Inc. v. McCrady, D2000-0429 (WIPO June 25, 2000) (finding that the top level of the domain name such as “.net” or “.com” does not affect the domain name for the purpose of determining whether it is identical or confusingly similar); see also Compaq Info. Techs. Group, L.P. v. Seocho, FA 103879 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 25, 2002) (finding that the domain name <compq.com> was confusingly similar to the complainant’s COMPAQ mark because the omission of the letter “a” in the domain name did not significantly change the overall impression of the mark); see also State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Try Harder & Co., FA 94730 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 15, 2000) (finding that the domain name <statfarm.com> was confusingly similar to the complainant’s STATE FARM mark); see also Neiman Marcus Group, Inc. v. Party Night, Inc., FA 114546 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 23, 2002) (finding the disputed domain name was a simple misspelling of the complainant’s mark and was a classic example of typosquatting, which “renders the domain name confusingly similar to the altered famous mark”). The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied. Rights or Legitimate Interests Respondent has failed to submit a response in this proceeding. In the absence of a response, the Panel accepts as true all reasonable allegations contained in the Complaint unless clearly contradicted by the evidence. Complainant has alleged that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the <enterpise.net> domain name. Complainant’s submission has gone unopposed and its arguments unrefuted. Further, because Respondent has failed to submit a response, Respondent has failed to propose any set of circumstances that could substantiate its rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. See Parfums Christian Dior v. QTR Corp., D2000-0023 (WIPO Mar. 9, 2000) (finding that by not submitting a response, the respondent failed to invoke any circumstance which could demonstrate any rights or legitimate interests in the domain name); see also Vertical Solutions Mgmt., Inc. v. webnet-marketing, inc., FA 95095 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 31, 2000) (holding that a respondent’s failure to respond allows all reasonable inferences of fact in the allegations of the complainant to be deemed true). Respondent is not using the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) because the domain name redirects unsuspecting Internet users to commercial websites that offer products and services that are in competition with Complainant’s services and other unrelated commercial websites. Respondent makes opportunistic use of Complainant’s mark in order to capitalize on the goodwill and fame associated with the ENTERPRISE moniker. See Ticketmaster Corp. v. DiscoverNet, Inc., D2001-0252 (WIPO Apr. 9, 2001) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where the respondent generated commercial gain by intentionally and misleadingly diverting users away from the complainant’s site to a competing website); see also N. Coast Med., Inc. v. Allegro Med., FA 95541 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 2, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests in a domain name that diverted Internet users to the respondent’s competing website through the use of the complainant’s mark). No evidence before the Panel suggests Respondent is commonly known by the <enterpise.net> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). Respondent’s WHOIS information indicates that the registrant of the disputed domain name is known as “Kentech Company Ltd” and is not known by the confusingly similar second-level domain that infringes on Complainant’s ENTERPRISE mark. Moreover, Respondent is not authorized or licensed to use Complainant’s mark for any purpose. Thus, Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). See Tercent Inc. v. Yi, FA 139720 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 10, 2003) (stating “nothing in Respondent’s WHOIS information implies that Respondent is ‘commonly known by’ the disputed domain name” as one factor in determining that Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) does not apply); see also RMO, Inc. v. Burbridge, FA 96949 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 16, 2001) (interpreting Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) “to require a showing that one has been commonly known by the domain name prior to registration of the domain name to prevail”); see also MRA Holding, LLC v. Costnet, FA 140454 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 20, 2003) (noting that “the disputed domain name does not even correctly spell a cognizable phrase” in finding that the respondent was not “commonly known by” the name GIRLS GON WILD or <girlsgonwild.com>). The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied. Registration and Use in Bad Faith Respondent makes use of a confusingly similar variation of Complainant’s famous ENTERPRISE mark to ensnare unsuspecting Internet users. Respondent then redirects the users to a website that provides links to various commercial websites. The Panel infers that Respondent receives pay-per-click fees when Internet users follow the links on its website. Respondent is profiting from the unauthorized use of Complainant’s registered mark in its domain name. Such infringement is what the Policy was intended to remedy and is bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See G.D. Searle & Co. v. Celebrex Drugstore, FA 123933 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 21, 2002) (finding that the respondent registered and used the domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) because the respondent was using the confusingly similar domain name to attract Internet users to its commercial website); see also Kmart v. Khan, FA 127708 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 22, 2002) (finding that if a respondent profits from its diversionary use of a complainant’s mark when the domain name resolves to commercial websites and the respondent fails to contest the complaint, it may be concluded that the respondent is using the domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)). Respondent registered and used a domain name that is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark that resolves to a website that provides links that direct Internet users to businesses that offer goods and services that compete with Complainant. Respondent’s use of the <enterpise.net> domain name establishes that Respondent registered and used the domain name for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See S. Exposure v. S. Exposure, Inc., FA 94864 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 18, 2000) (finding the respondent acted in bad faith by attracting Internet users to a website that competes with the complainant’s business); see also EthnicGrocer.com, Inc. v. Unlimited Latin Flavors, Inc., FA 94385 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 7, 2000) (finding that the minor degree of variation from the complainant’s marks suggested that the respondent, a competitor of the complainant’s, registered the names primarily for the purpose of disrupting the complainant’s business); see also Puckett v. Miller, D2000-0297 (WIPO June 12, 2000) (finding that the respondent diverted business from the complainant to a competitor’s website in violation of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)). Furthermore, while each of the four circumstances listed under Policy ¶ 4(b), if proven, evidences bad faith use and registration of a domain name, additional factors can also be used to support findings of bad faith. See Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. v. Risser, FA 93761 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 18, 2000) (finding that in determining if a domain name has been registered in bad faith, the Panel must look at the “totality of circumstances”); see also Do the Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, D2000-0624 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000) (“[T]he examples [of bad faith] in Paragraph 4(b) are intended to be illustrative, rather than exclusive.”). Respondent’s removal of a single letter from Complainant’s well-known ENTERPRISE mark, resulting in a domain name that is confusingly similar to the mark, is evidence of bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name. Respondent diverts Internet users who accidentally mistype Complainant’s mark to Respondent’s commercial website. Respondent engaged in the practice of typosquatting. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Nat’l Ass’n of Prof’l Baseball Leagues v. Zuccarini, D2002-1011 (WIPO Jan. 21, 2003) (“Typosquatting is the intentional misspelling of words with intent to intercept and siphon off traffic from its intended destination, by preying on Internauts who make common typing errors. Typosquatting is inherently parasitic and of itself evidence of bad faith.”); see also Zone Labs, Inc. v. Zuccarini, FA 190613 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 15, 2003) (finding that the respondent registered and used the <zonelarm.com> domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) because the name was merely a typosquatted version of the complainant’s ZONEALARM mark. “Typosquatting, itself is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).”); see also Dermalogica, Inc. v. Domains to Develop, FA 175201 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 22, 2003) (finding that the <dermatalogica.com> domain name was a typosquatted version of the complainant’s DERMALOGICA mark and stating that “[t]yposquatting itself is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy 4(a)(iii)”). Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name, a domain name that incorporates Complainant’s well-known registered mark and simply removes a single letter, suggests that Respondent knew of Complainant’s rights in the ENTERPRISE mark. Additionally, Complainant’s trademark registration on file at the USPTO gave Respondent constructive notice of Complainant’s mark. Moreover, the fact that Respondent’s website directs Internet users to Complainant’s competitors evidences Respondent’s knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the mark. Thus, the Panel finds that Respondent chose the <enterpise.net> domain name based on the distinctive and well-known qualities of Complainant’s mark, which evidences bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Pavillion Agency, Inc. v. Greenhouse Agency Ltd., D2000-1221 (WIPO Dec. 4, 2000) (finding that the “domain names are so obviously connected with the Complainants that the use or registration by anyone other than Complainants suggests ‘opportunistic bad faith’”); see also Sony Kabushiki Kaisha v. Inja, Kil, D2000-1409 (WIPO Dec. 9, 2000) (finding bad faith registration and use where it is “inconceivable that the respondent could make any active use of the disputed domain names without creating a false impression of association with the Complainant”); see also Reuters Ltd. v. Teletrust IPR Ltd., D2000-0471 (WIPO Sept. 8, 2000) (finding that Respondent demonstrated bad faith where Respondent was aware of Complainant’s famous mark when registering the domain name as well as aware of the deception and confusion that would inevitably follow if he used the domain names); see also Samsonite Corp. v. Colony Holding, FA 94313 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 17, 2000) (finding that evidence of bad faith includes actual or constructive knowledge of a commonly known mark at the time of registration); see also Orange Glo Int’l v. Blume, FA 118313 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 4, 2002) (“Complainant’s OXICLEAN mark is listed on the Principal Register of the USPTO, a status that confers constructive notice on those seeking to register or use the mark or any confusingly similar variation thereof.”). The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) has been satisfied. 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 <enterpise.net> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. The Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.), Panelist Dated: May 10, 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.