Alamocarrentail.com

The timeline behind alamocarrentail.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 Vanguard Trademark Holdings USA LLC v. Above.com Domain Privacy Claim Number: FA1210001466774 PARTIES Complainant is Vanguard Trademark Holdings USA LLC (“Complainant”), represented by Renee Reuter of Vanguard Trademark Holdings USA LLC, Missouri, USA. Respondent is Above.com Domain Privacy (“Respondent”), Australia. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name here at issue is <alamocarrentail.com>, registered with ABOVE.COM PTY LTD. PANEL The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially, and, to the best of his knowledge, has no conflict of interests in serving as Panelist in this proceeding. Terry F. Peppard as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electron-ically on October 10, 2012. The National Arbitration Forum received payment on October 10, 2012. On October 12, 2012, ABOVE.COM PTY LTD. confirmed by e-mail to the Nat-ional Arbitration Forum that the <alamocarrentail.com> domain name is regis-tered with ABOVE.COM PTY LTD. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. ABOVE.COM PTY LTD. has verified that Respondent is bound by the ABOVE.COM PTY LTD. registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”). On October 12, 2012, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, includ-ing a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of November 1, 2012 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all en-tities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administra-tive, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@alamocarrentail.com. Also on October 12, 2012, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the e-mail addresses served and the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to Respondent via post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts. Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default. On November 14, 2012, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Terry F. Peppard as sole Panelist in this proceeding. 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" through submission of Electronic and Written Notices, as defined in Rule 1 and Rule 2. 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 Complainant is the owner of the ALAMO mark, and is the largest car rental provider to international travelers visiting North America. Complainant holds a registration of the ALAMO service mark, on file with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (Reg. No. 1,097,722 registered July 25, 1978). Respondent’s <alamocarrentail.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ALAMO mark. Respondent registered its <alamocarrentail.com> domain name May 21, 2012. Respondent’s resolving page provides links to the webpages of car rental ser-vices operating in competition with the business of Complainant. Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Complainant has not licensed or permitted Respondent to use its ALAMO mark. Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in the <alamocarrentail.com> domain name. Respondent was aware of Complainant’s business and of its rights in the ALAMO mark when it registered the disputed domain name. Respondent is attracting to its resolving website, for its commercial gain, Internet traffic intended for Complainant’s website by creating a likelihood of confusion among Internet users with Complainant’s ALAMO mark. Respondent registered and is using the <alamocarrentail.com> domain name in bad faith. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding in compliance with the requirements of the Policy and its accompanying rules. However, in an e-mail message addressed to the National Arbitration Forum, Respondent has recited as follows: i [sic] do not wish to contest this domain and would like to freely push it over to the complainant. DISCUSSION Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that, in the ordinary course, Complainant must prove each of the following in order to obtain from a Panel an order that a domain name be transferred to it: i. the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; ii. Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and iii. the same domain name was registered and is being used by Respond-ent in bad faith. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”) instructs this Panel to “decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accord-ance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable.” Further, Policy ¶ 3(a) provides for the transfer of a domain name registration upon the written instructions of the parties to a UDRP proceeding without the need for otherwise required findings and conclusions (see Malev Hungarian Airlines, Ltd. v. Vertical Axis Inc., FA 212653 (Nat. Ar. Forum Jan. 13, 2004; see also Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. Morales, FA 475191 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jun. 24, 2005)). DECISION Respondent’s non-compliant response to the Complaint does not contest the material allegations of the Complaint, and, in particular it does not contest Com-plainant’s request that the domain name subject be transferred to Complainant. Rather the parties have effectively agreed in writing to a transfer of the domain name from Respondent to Complainant without the need for further proceedings. Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <alamocarrentail.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED forthwith from Respondent to Complainant. Terry F. Peppard, Panelist Dated: November 27, 2012 Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page. Click Here to return to our Home Page

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