Enterprise Holdings, Inc. v. Carolina Rodrigues / Fundacion Comercio Electronico
Claim Number: FA2001001879695
Complainant is Enterprise Holdings, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Josh A. Partington of Harness, Dickey & Pierce, PLC, Virginia, USA. Respondent is Carolina Rodrigues / Fundacion Comercio Electronico (“Respondent”), Panama.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <enterpriseautofinane.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.
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.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on January 20, 2020; the Forum received payment on January 20, 2020.
On January 21, 2020, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <enterpriseautofinane.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 January 27, 2020, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 18, 2020 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@enterpriseautofinane.com. Also on January 27, 2020, 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 Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On February 21, 2020, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed the Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.) as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the 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 Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant, Enterprise Holdings, Inc., is an internationally recognized brand serving the vehicle rental and leasing needs of customers, including both business and holiday travelers, throughout the United States, Canada, Ireland, Germany, the United Kingdom, and other countries around the world. Complainant has rights in the ENTERPRISE mark through its registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 1,343,167, registered June 18, 1985). Respondent’s <enterpriseautofinane.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ENTERPRISE mark. Respondent incorporates the ENTERPRISE mark in its entirety and adds the generic terms “auto” and “finance” (with the letter “c” removed) along with the “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”).
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <enterpriseautofinane.com> domain name as Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name nor did Complainant license or permit Respondent to use the ENTERPRISE. Respondent fails to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, Respondent’s disputed domain name resolves to a webpage that provides pay-per-click links that are related to Complainant’s business. Respondent also attempts to sell the disputed domain name.
Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith as Respondent attempts to sell the <enterpriseautofinane.com> domain name. Respondent has been engaged in previous UDRP decisions which shows evidence of prior actions of bad faith. Respondent’s domain name resolves to a page that offers pay-per-click links related to Complainant’s business. Lastly, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the ENTERPRISE mark prior to registration of the disputed domain name.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, Enterprise Holdings, Inc., is an internationally recognized brand serving the vehicle rental and leasing needs of customers, including both business and holiday travelers, throughout the United States, Canada, Ireland, Germany, the United Kingdom, and other countries around the world. Complainant has rights in the ENTERPRISE mark through its registration with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 1,343,167, registered June 18, 1985). Respondent’s <enterpriseautofinane.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ENTERPRISE mark.
Respondent registered the <enterpriseautofinane.com> domain name on December 13, 2019.
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <enterpriseautofinane.com> domain name Respondent’s disputed domain name resolves to a webpage that provides pay-per-click links that are related to Complainant’s business. Respondent also attempts to sell the disputed domain name.
Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith.
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(f), 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 set forth in a complaint; however, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory or unsubstantiated arguments. See WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 at ¶ 4.3; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (“Because Complainant did not produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations [. . .] the Panel finds it appropriate to dismiss the Complaint”).
Complainant has rights in the ENTERPRISE mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through its registration with the USPTO. See Liberty Global Logistics, LLC v. damilola emmanuel / tovary services limited, FA 1738536 (Forum Aug. 4, 2017) (“Registration of a mark with the USPTO sufficiently establishes the required rights in the mark for purposes of the Policy.”).
Respondent’s <enterpriseautofinane.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ENTERPRISE mark. Respondent incorporates the ENTERPRISE mark in its entirety and adds the generic terms “auto” and “finance” (with the letter “c” removed) along with the “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”).
Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the <enterpriseautofinane.com> domain name. Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use the ENTERPRISE mark or register domain names using Complainant’s mark. The WHOIS information for the disputed domain name lists the registrant as “Carolina Rodrigues / Fundacion Comercio Electronico.” Therefore, Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). Where a response is lacking, WHOIS information may be used to determine whether a respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. LY Ta, FA 1789106 (Forum June 21, 2018) (concluding a respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name where the complainant asserted it did not authorize the respondent to use the mark, and the relevant WHOIS information indicated the respondent is not commonly known by the domain name).
Respondent fails to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). Respondent’s <enterpriseautofinane.com> domain name resolves to a webpage that hosts pay-per-click links that are related to Complainant’s business. Use of a disputed domain name to offer pay-per-click links that are related to a complainant’s business is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See Ashley Furniture Industries, Inc. v. domain admin / private registrations aktien gesellschaft, FA1506001626253 (Forum July 29, 2015) (“Respondent is using the disputed domain name to resolve to a web page containing advertising links to products that compete with those of Complainant. The Panel finds that this does not constitute a bona fide offering or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use.”).
Furthermore, Respondent attempts to sell the disputed domain name to the general public. Evidence of a respondent attempting to sell a disputed domain name does not show a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). See 3M Company v. Kabir S Rawat, FA 1725052 (Forum May 9, 2017) (holding that “a general offer for sale… provides additional evidence that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests” in a disputed domain name). Here, Complainant has provided a screenshot that shows Respondent offering its <enterpriseautofinane.com> domain name for a minimum offer of $500.
Respondent registered and uses the <enterpriseautofinane.com> domain name in bad faith. Respondent attempts to sell the disputed domain name to the general public which is evidence of bad faith registration and use per Policy ¶ 4(b)(i). See Vanguard Trademark Holdings USA LLC v. Wang Liqun, FA1506001625332 (Forum July 17, 2015) (“A respondent’s general offer to sell a disputed domain name for an excess of out-of-pocket costs is evidence of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(i).”).
Respondent has been involved in previous adverse UDRP decisions which shows a pattern of bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii). See Sanlam Life Insurance Limited v. Syed Hussain / Domain Management MIC, FA 1787219 (Forum June 15, 2018) (finding bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii) where the complainant provided evidence the respondent owned various domain names infringing on famous third-party marks; and also that the respondent had been ordered to transfer domain names in previous UDRP decisions).
Respondent’s <enterpriseautofinane.com> domain name resolves to a webpage that offers pay-per-click links related to Complainant’s business which shows bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See Lenovo (Beijing) Limited Corporation China v. jeonggon seo, FA1411001591638 (Forum Jan. 16, 2015) (finding that where the complainant operated in the computer industry and the respondent used the disputed domain name to offer competing computer related links, the respondent was disrupting the complainant’s business offerings in violation of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)). .
Lastly, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the ENTERPRISE prior to registration of the <enterpriseautofinane.com> domain name due to the worldwide reputation of the mark. Actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the mark prior to registering the disputed domain name is adequate to find bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). Use of a disputed domain name that incorporates a well-known and famous mark is evidence of actual knowledge. See Coachella Music Festival, LLC v. ALEXANDER DE ALMEIDA LOPES, FA 1705267 (Forum Jan. 9, 2017) (finding the respondent had actual knowledge of the complainant’s COACHELLA mark when it registered and used the <coachellastuff.com> domain name—and thus did so in bad faith—because the complainant presented adequate evidence that its mark was well-known and famous).
Respondent has also engaged in typosquatting.
Complainant having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <enterpriseautofinane.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
The Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.), Panelist
Dated: March 7, 2020
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page