Enterpriseluxurycars.com

The timeline behind enterpriseluxurycars.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. The Cybertrade c/o Mr. Irfan Umer Claim Number: FA0803001172986 PARTIES Complainant is Enterprise Rent-A-Car Company (“Complainant”), represented by David R. Haarz, of Harness, Dickey & Pierce, P.L.C., Virginia, USA. Respondent is The Cybertrade c/o Mr. Irfan Umer (“Respondent”), Mumbai, India. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <enterpriseluxurycars.com>, registered with Quantumpages Technologies Pvt. Ltd. d/b/a Ownregistrar.com. 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. Louis E. Condon as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on March 31, 2008; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on April 1, 2008. On March 31, 2008, Quantumpages Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Dba Ownregistrar.com confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <enterpriseluxurycars.com> domain name is registered with Quantumpages Technologies Pvt. Ltd. d/b/a Ownregistrar.com and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Quantumpages Technologies Pvt. Ltd. d/b/a Ownregistrar.com has verified that Respondent is bound by the Quantumpages Technologies Pvt. Ltd. d/b/a Ownregistrar.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 April 3, 2008, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of April 23, 2008 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@enterpriseluxurycars.com by e-mail. Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default. On May 7, 2008, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Louis E. Condon 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 <enterpriseluxurycars.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ENTERPRISE mark. 2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <enterpriseluxurycars.com> domain name. 3. Respondent registered and used the <enterpriseluxurycars.com> domain name in bad faith. B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant, Enterprise Rent-A-Car Company, is in the business of car rentals. Complainant uses the ENTERPRISE and ENTERPRISE RENT-A-CAR marks in association with this business and registered the marks with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) on June 18, 1985 (Reg. No. 1,343,167) and July 25, 2000 (Reg. No. 2,371,192), respectively. Respondent’s <enterpriseluxurycars.com> domain name, which was registered on February 21, 2007, resolves to a parked page displaying hyperlinks, some of which are in direct competition with Complainant. 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. The Panel is entitled to accept all reasonable allegations and inferences set forth in the Complaint as true unless the evidence is clearly contradictory. See 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 complaint to be deemed true); see also 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.”). 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 The Panel finds that Complainant has established sufficient rights in the ENTERPRISE and ENTERPRISE RENT-A-CAR marks by Complainant’s USPTO registrations of the marks under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Innomed Techs., Inc. v. DRP Servs., FA 221171 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 18, 2004) (“Registration of the NASAL-AIRE mark with the USPTO establishes Complainant's rights in the mark.”); see also Vivendi Universal Games v. XBNetVentures Inc., FA 198803 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 11, 2003) (“Complainant's federal trademark registrations establish Complainant's rights in the BLIZZARD mark.”). The Panel finds that Respondent’s <enterpriseluxurycars.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ENTERPRISE mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) as it contains Complainant’s entire mark and adds the generic phrase “luxury cars,” which has an apparent relationship to Complainant’s business of car rentals. When evaluating if the disputed domain name is confusingly similar, the addition of a generic top-level domain “.com” is irrelevant. Therefore, Respondent’s disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Oki Data Ams., Inc. v. ASD, Inc., D2001-0903 (WIPO Nov. 6, 2001) (“[T]he fact that a domain name wholly incorporates a Complainant’s registered mark is sufficient to establish identity [sic] or confusing similarity for purposes of the Policy despite the addition of other words to such marks”); see also Am. Int’l Group, Inc. v. Ling Shun Shing, FA 206399 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 15, 2003) (finding that the addition of the term “assurance,” to the complainant’s AIG mark failed to sufficiently differentiate the name from the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) because the appended term related directly to the complainant’s business); see also 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). The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied. Rights or Legitimate Interests Initially Complainant must establish that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests with respect to the <enterpriseluxurycars.com> domain name. However, once Complainant makes a prima facie case, the burden of proof shifts, and Respondent must prove that it has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Panel finds that Complainant has met its burden of proof, but chooses to examine all of the evidence before making a final determination with respect to Policy ¶ 4(c). See Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, D2000-0624 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000) (holding that once the complainant asserts that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the domain, the burden shifts to the respondent to provide “concrete evidence that it has rights to or legitimate interests in the domain name at issue”); see also G.D. Searle v. Martin Mktg., FA 118277 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 1, 2002) (“Because Complainant’s Submission constitutes a prima facie case under the Policy, the burden effectively shifts to Respondent. Respondent’s failure to respond means that Respondent has not presented any circumstances that would promote its rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).”); see also Compagnie Generale des Matieres Nucleaires v. Greenpeace Int’l, D2001-0376 (WIPO May 14, 2001) (“Proving that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name requires the Complainant to prove a negative. For the purposes of this sub paragraph, however, it is sufficient for the Complainant to show a prima facie case and the burden of proof is then shifted on to the shoulders of Respondent. In those circumstances, the common approach is for respondents to seek to bring themselves within one of the examples of paragraph 4(c) or put forward some other reason why they can fairly be said to have a relevant right or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name in question.”). The Panel finds that Respondent is using the <enterpriseluxurycars.com> domain name to display hyperlinks to a parked page with a list of third-party websites, some of which are Complainant’s competitors. The Panel infers that Respondent is earning click-through fees from the use of the dispute domain name, which is not 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 TM Acquisition Corp. v. Sign Guards, FA 132439 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 31, 2002) (finding that the respondent’s diversionary use of the complainant’s marks to send Internet users to a website which displayed a series of links, some of which linked to the complainant’s competitors, was not a bona fide offering of goods or services); see also Wells Fargo & Co. v. Lin Shun Shing, FA 205699 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 8, 2003) (finding that using a domain name to direct Internet traffic to a website featuring pop-up advertisements and links to various third-party websites is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) because the registrant presumably receives compensation for each misdirected Internet user). The Panel also finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the <enterpriseluxurycars.com> domain name based on its WHOIS information and the fact that there is no other information in the record to suggest otherwise under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). Additionally, Complainant asserts that Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant nor licensed or authorized to use Complainant’s ENTERPRISE mark. See Am. W. Airlines, Inc. v. Paik, FA 206396 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 22, 2003) (“Respondent has registered the domain name under the name ‘Ilyoup Paik a/k/a David Sanders.’ Given the WHOIS domain name registration information, Respondent is not commonly known by the [<awvacations.com>] domain name.”); 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 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). The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been met. Registration and Use in Bad Faith Based on the uncontested evidence presented by Complainant, the Panel finds that Respondent receives click-through fees for the hyperlinks displayed on the website that resolves from the <enterpriseluxurycars.com> domain name. The Panel also finds that Respondent’s disputed domain name is capable of creating a likelihood of confusion as to Complainant’s sponsorship and affiliation with the disputed domain name and corresponding website. Such commercial benefit constitutes bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Am. Univ. v. Cook, FA 208629 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 22, 2003) (“Registration and use of a domain name that incorporates another's mark with the intent to deceive Internet users in regard to the source or affiliation of the domain name is evidence of bad faith.”); see also Associated Newspapers Ltd. v. Domain Manager, FA 201976 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 19, 2003) (“Respondent's prior use of the <mailonsunday.com> domain name is evidence of bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) because the domain name provided links to Complainant's competitors and Respondent presumably commercially benefited from the misleading domain name by receiving ‘click-through-fees.’”). Furthermore, the Panel finds that Respondent is using the <enterpriseluxurycars.com> domain name to redirect Internet users to a website that contains third-party hyperlinks, some of which are in direct competition with Complainant. Such use constitutes a disruption of Complainant’s business and qualifies as bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See Puckett, Individually v. Miller, D2000-0297 (WIPO June 12, 2000) (finding that the respondent has diverted business from the complainant to a competitor’s website in violation of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)); see also Luck's Music Library v. Stellar Artist Mgmt., FA 95650 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 30, 2000) (finding that the respondent engaged in bad faith use and registration by using domain names that were identical or confusingly similar to the complainant’s mark to redirect users to a website that offered services similar to those offered by the complainant). The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) has been satisfied. DECISION Complainant having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief should be GRANTED. Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <enterpriseluxurycars.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Louis E. Condon, Panelist Dated: May 13, 2008 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.