Enterprisecarental.com

The timeline behind enterprisecarental.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. Forum LLC Claim Number: FA0503000445529 PARTIES Complainant is Enterprise Rent-A-Car Company (“Complainant”), represented by Vicki L. Little, of Schultz and Little, L.L.P., 640 Cepi Drive, Suite A, Chesterfield, MO 63005-1221. Respondent is Forum LLC (“Respondent”), P.O. Box 2331, Roseau, Roseau 00152, DM. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <enterprisecarental.com>, registered with Fabulous.com Pty Ltd. 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. James A. Crary 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 28, 2005, Fabulous.com Pty Ltd. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the domain name <enterprisecarental.com> is registered with Fabulous.com Pty Ltd. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Fabulous.com Pty Ltd. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Fabulous.com Pty Ltd. 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 29, 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@enterprisecarental.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 April 22, 2005, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed James A. Crary 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 <enterprisecarental.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ENTERPRISE mark. 2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <enterprisecarental.com> domain name. 3. Respondent registered and used the <enterprisecarental.com> domain name in bad faith. B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant, Enterprise Rent-A-Car Company, holds several trademark registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office for the ENTERPRISE mark (Reg. Nos. 1,343,167 issued June 18, 1985 and 2,052,192 issued April 15, 1997). Complainant has used the ENTERPRISE mark in connection with its vehicle rental, leasing and sales services since 1985. Respondent registered the <enterprisecarental.com> domain name on February 11, 2005. Respondent’s domain name resolves to a website that features links to competing car rental services. 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 rights in the ENTERPRISE mark through registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office and through continuous use of the mark in commerce. 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 Am. Online, Inc. v. Thomas P. Culver Enters., D2001-0564 (WIPO June 18, 2001) (finding that successful trademark registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office creates a presumption of rights in a mark). Respondent’s <enterprisecarental.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ENTERPRISE mark. Respondent’s domain name incorporates Complainant’s mark in its entirety and merely adds a misspelled version of the phrase “car rental,” which describes Complainant’s business. This addition to Complainant’s mark does not negate the confusingly similar aspects of Respondent’s domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See 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 the complainant combined with a generic word or term); see also Space Imaging LLC v. Brownell, AF-0298 (eResolution Sept. 22, 2000) (finding confusing similarity where the respondent’s domain name combines the complainant’s mark with a generic term that has an obvious relationship to the complainant’s business); see also Brown & Bigelow, Inc. v. Rodela, FA 96466 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 5, 2001) (finding that the <hoylecasino.net> domain name was confusingly similar to the complainant’s HOYLE mark, and that the addition of “casino,” a generic word describing the type of business in which the complainant was engaged, did not take the disputed domain name out of the realm of confusing similarity). Additionally, Respondent’s <enterprisecarental.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ENTERPRISE mark because the domain name incorporates Complainant’s mark in its entirety and merely adds the generic top-level domain “.com.” The addition of a generic top-level domain name to Complainant’s mark does not negate the confusingly similar aspects of Respondent’s domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Fed’n of Gay Games, Inc. v. Hodgson, D2000-0432 (WIPO June 28, 2000) (finding that the domain name <gaygames.com> was identical to the complainant's registered trademark GAY GAMES); see also Little Six, Inc. v. Domain For Sale, FA 96967 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 30, 2001) (finding that <mysticlake.net> was plainly identical to the complainant’s MYSTIC LAKE trademark and service mark). The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied. Rights or Legitimate Interests Respondent has failed to respond to the Complaint. Therefore, the Panel may accept all reasonable assertions and allegations set forth by Complainant as true and accurate. See Desotec N.V. v. Jacobi 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); see also Bayerische Motoren Werke AG v. Bavarian AG, FA 110830 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 17, 2002) (finding that in the absence of a response the panel is free to make inferences from the very failure to respond and assign greater weight to certain circumstances than it might otherwise do). Complainant has asserted that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <enterprisecarental.com> domain name, and Respondent, in not submitting a response, has failed to rebut this assertion. Thus, the Panel may interpret Respondent’s failure to respond as evidence that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the <enterprisecarental.com> domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). See Parfums Christian Dior v. QTR Corp., D2000-0023 (WIPO Mar. 9, 2000) (finding that by not submitting a response, the respondent has failed to invoke any circumstance which could demonstrate any rights or legitimate interests in the domain name); see also Bank of Am. Corp. v. McCall, FA 135012 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 31, 2002) (“Respondent's failure to respond not only results in its failure to meet its burden, but also will be viewed as evidence itself that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.”). Complainant is using the <enterprisecarental.com> domain name, which is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ENTERPRISE mark, to operate a website that features links to competing car rental services. Such use is not a use in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See DLJ Long Term Inv. Corp. v. BargainDomainNames.com, FA 104580 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 9, 2002) (“Respondent is not using the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services because Respondent is using the domain name to divert Internet users to <visual.com>, where services that compete with Complainant are advertised.”); see also Ameritrade Holdings Corp. v. Polanski, FA 102715 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 11, 2002) (finding that the respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to redirect Internet users to a financial services website, which competed with the complainant, was not a bona fide offering of goods or services). Furthermore, nothing in the record indicates that Respondent is either commonly known by the <enterprisecarental.com> domain name or is authorized or licensed to register domain names featuring Complainant’s ENTERPRISE mark. Thus, the Panel finds that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the <enterprisecarental.com> domain name 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 interest where the respondent was not commonly known by the mark and never applied for a license or permission from the complainant to use the trademarked name); see also Charles Jourdan Holding AG v. AAIM, D2000-0403 (WIPO June 27, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where (1) the respondent is not a licensee of the complainant; (2) the complainant’s rights in the mark precede the respondent’s registration; (3) the respondent is not commonly known by the domain name in question). The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied. Registration and Use in Bad Faith Respondent is using the <enterprisecarental.com> domain name, which is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ENTERPRISE mark, to operate a website that features links to competing car rental services. Such use constitutes disruption and is evidence that Respondent registered and used the domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See Six Continents Hotels, Inc. v. Asia Ventures, D2003-0659 (WIPO Oct. 14, 2003) (finding that the respondent registered a domain name primarily to disrupt the business of its competitor because it directed “its web site to travel-related services in competition with the complainant and is deriving a financial benefit from such direction and redirection of users to such sites, particularly, through banner advertisements, pop-up windows and its affiliate relationships”); see also S. Exposure v. S. Exposure, Inc., FA 94864 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 18, 2000) (finding that the respondent acted in bad faith by attracting Internet users to a website that competes with the complainant’s business). Additionally, the Panel infers that Respondent receives click-through fees for diverting Internet users to competing car rental services. Since Respondent is using a domain name that is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark, consumers searching for Complainant online who access Respondent’s domain name may become confused as to Complainant’s affiliation with the resulting website. Thus, the Panel finds that Respondent’s commercial use of the <enterprisecarental.com> constitutes bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Kmart v. Khan, FA 127708 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 22, 2002) (finding that if the respondent profits from its diversionary use of the 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)); see also eBay, Inc v. Progressive Life Awareness Network, D2000-0068 (WIPO Mar. 16, 2001) (finding bad faith where the respondent is taking advantage of the recognition that eBay has created for its mark and therefore profiting by diverting users seeking the eBay website to the respondent’s site). Furthermore, Respondent registered the <enterprisecarental.com> domain name with actual or constructive knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the ENTERPRISE mark due to Complainant’s registration of the mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Moreover, the Panel finds that Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the mark because of the obvious link between Complainant and the content advertised on Respondent’s website. Thus, Respondent registered and used the <enterprisecarental.com> domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See 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.”); see also Pfizer, Inc. v. Suger, D2002-0187 (WIPO Apr. 24, 2002) (finding that because the link between the complainant’s mark and the content advertised on the respondent’s website was obvious, the respondent “must have known about the Complainant’s mark when it registered the subject domain name”). 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 <enterprisecarental.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. James A. Crary, Panelist Dated: May 5, 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.