Callnationalcarrent.com

The timeline behind callnationalcarrent.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. Anil Jain Claim Number: FA1310001526413 PARTIES Complainant is Vanguard Trademark Holdings USA LLC (“Complainant”), represented by David R. Haarz of Harness, Dickey & Pierce, PLC., Virginia, USA. Respondent is Anil Jain (“Respondent”), India. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <callnationalcarrent.com>, registered with GODADDY.COM, LLC. 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. David E. Sorkin as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on October 24, 2013; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on October 24, 2013. On October 25, 2013, GODADDY.COM, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <callnationalcarrent.com> domain name is registered with GODADDY.COM, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GODADDY.COM, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the GODADDY.COM, LLC 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 25, 2013, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of November 14, 2013 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@callnationalcarrent.com. Also on October 25, 2013, 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 19, 2013, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed David E. Sorkin 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" 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 NATIONAL and NATIONAL CAR RENTAL marks, which it licenses to National Car Rental operating companies. Complainant states that National Car Rental is an internationally recognized brand, and that National Car Rental companies operate throughout the United States, Canada, Mexico, the Caribbean, Latin America, Asia, and the Pacific Rim. Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name <callnationalcarrent.com> is confusingly similar to its marks. The domain name resolves to a web page that contains two travel-related articles and an advertisement that links to another website. Complainant alleges that this use is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Complainant states that it has not authorized Respondent to use its marks, and asserts that Respondent is not commonly known as “Call National Car Rent.” On these grounds Complainant contends that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. Complainant characterizes Respondent’s web page as a “content farm ... contain[ing] virtually meaningless textual content which is specifically designed to satisfy algorithms for maximum retrieval by automated search engines” in order to generate revenue from click-through fees. Complainant argues that this use falls squarely within Paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy, and thus indicates that the domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and has been used in bad faith. 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." 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. 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.”). Identical and/or Confusingly Similar The disputed domain name consists of Complainant’s NATIONAL CAR RENTAL mark, with the last word truncated to “rent,” and the generic term “call” and the generic top-level domain “.com” added. As the domain name contains nearly all of the mark and merely abbreviates the last word, the truncation is of little significance. See Vanguard Trademark Holdings USA LLC v. Expired Domain c/o directNIC.com, FA 1310848 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 16, 2010) (finding <nationalcarrent.org> confusingly similar to NATIONAL CAR RENTAL). Furthermore, neither the generic term “call” nor the top-level domain “.com” distinguishes the domain name from Complainant’s mark. See, e.g., State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. David Robertson, FA 1435410 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 11, 2012) (finding <callstatefarm.com> confusingly similar to STATE FARM); U-Haul International, Inc. v. Steven Freed, FA 103878 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 1, 2002) (finding <calluhaul.com> confusingly similar to U-HAUL). The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s NATIONAL CAR RENTAL mark. Rights or Legitimate Interests Under the Policy, the Complainant must first make a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and then the burden shifts to the Respondent to come forward with concrete evidence of such rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 18, 2006). The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark, as discussed supra, and the only apparent use of the domain name is in connection with a web page that Complainant (accurately, in the Panel’s view) characterizes as a “content farm” designed to exploit and profit from confusion among Internet users. Complainant has made a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain name, and Respondent has failed to come forward with any evidence of such rights or interests. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has sustained its burden of proving that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. Registration and Use in Bad Faith Finally, Complainant must show that the disputed domain name was registered and has been used in bad faith. Under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy, bad faith may be shown by evidence that “by using the domain name, [Respondent] intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [Respondent’s] web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of [Respondent’s] web site or location or of a product or service on [Respondent’s] web site or location.” The Panel agrees with Complainant’s contention that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name falls squarely within this provision of the Policy. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the Panel infers that the domain name was registered for this bad faith use. The Panel therefore finds that Complainant has sustained its burden of proving that the disputed domain name was registered and has been used in bad faith. DECISION Having considered all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED. Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <callnationalcarrent.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. David E. Sorkin, Panelist Dated: November 23, 2013 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.