Enterprise Rent-A-Car Company v.
Claim Number: FA0709001074809
Complainant is Enterprise Rent-A-Car Company (“Complainant”), represented by Jennifer
A. Visintine, of Thompson Coburn LLP,
One US Bank Plaza,
REGISTRAR
AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <enterprizetruckrental.com>, registered with Intercosmos Media Group, Inc. d/b/a Directnic.com.
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.
Judge Harold Kalina (Ret.) as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on September 5, 2007; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on September 11, 2007.
On September 6, 2007, Intercosmos Media Group, Inc. d/b/a Directnic.com confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <enterprizetruckrental.com> domain name is registered with Intercosmos Media Group, Inc. d/b/a Directnic.com and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Intercosmos Media Group, Inc. d/b/a Directnic.com has verified that Respondent is bound by the Intercosmos Media Group, Inc. d/b/a Directnic.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 September 14, 2007, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of October 4, 2007 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@enterprizetruckrental.com by e-mail.
Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On October 11, 2007, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Judge Harold Kalina (Ret.) 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.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant makes the following assertions:
1. Respondent’s
<enterprizetruckrental.com>
domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <enterprizetruckrental.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <enterprizetruckrental.com> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, Enterprise
Rent-A-Car Company, has continuously used since 1967 the
Respondent’s <enterprizetruckrental.com>
domain name was registered on March 15, 2006 and resolves to commercial search
engine and a series of sponsored links, many of which provide vehicle rental
services that are in competition with those services provided under
Complainant’s mark.
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.
Complainant has established its rights pursuant to Policy ¶
4(a)(i) in the
Respondent’s <enterprizetruckrental.com> domain
name replaces the “s” in “
The Panel concludes that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must initially make out
a prima facie case that Respondent
has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. See
TotalFinaElf E&P USA, Inc. v. Farnes, FA 117028 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept.
16, 2002) (“In order to bring a claim under the Policy, Complainant must first
establish a prima facie case.
Complainant’s [initial burden] is to provide proof of valid, subsisting rights
in a mark that is similar or identical to the domain name in question.”). The
Panel finds that Complainant has established this and that the burden is
accordingly shifted to Respondent to prove that it has any rights or legitimate
interests in the disputed domain name. See 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.); see also Clerical Med. Inv. Group Ltd. v. Clericalmedical.com,
D2000-1228 (WIPO Nov. 28, 2000) (finding that, under certain circumstances, the
mere assertion by the complainant that the respondent has no right or
legitimate interest is sufficient to shift the burden of proof to the
respondent to demonstrate that such a right or legitimate interest does exist).
Respondent has failed to submit a response to the
Complaint. The Panel thus presumes that
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <enterprizetruckrental.com>
domain name, but will still consider all the available evidence under the
factors listed in Policy ¶ 4(c). See G.D.
Searle v. Martin Mktg., FA 118277 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 1, 2002)
(“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 Charles Jourdan Holding AG v. AAIM, D2000-0403 (WIPO June
27, 2000) (finding it appropriate for the panel to draw adverse inferences from
the respondent’s failure to reply to the complaint).
Nowhere in Respondent’s WHOIS information or elsewhere in
the record does it indicate that Respondent is or ever had been commonly known
by the <enterprizetruckrental.com>
domain name. Moreover, Respondent has
not sought or been granted permission by Complainant to use the
Respondent’s <enterprizetruckrental.com> domain
name resolves to a commercial search engine and a series of sponsored links,
many of which advertise and offer services that compete with the services
offered under Complainant’s ENTERPRISE mark.
The Panel presumes that these sponsored links financially benefit Complainant. The Panel finds that this 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 WeddingChannel.com Inc. v. Vasiliev,
FA 156716 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 12, 2003) (finding that the respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to redirect Internet users
to websites unrelated to the complainant’s mark, websites where the respondent
presumably receives a referral fee for each misdirected Internet user, was not
a bona fide offering of goods or services
as contemplated by the Policy); see also
Glaxo Group Ltd. v. WWW Zban, FA 203164 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 1, 2003)
(finding that the respondent was not using the domain name within the
parameters of Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii) because the respondent used the domain
name to take advantage of the complainant's mark by diverting Internet users to
a competing commercial site).
The Panel concludes that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Respondent’s <enterprizetruckrental.com> domain name resolves to a website featuring a commercial search engine and sponsored links, some of which offer services in direct competition with those offered under Complainant’s mark. As such, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See Disney Enters., Inc. v. Noel, FA 198805 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 11, 2003) (“Respondent registered a domain name confusingly similar to Complainant's mark to divert Internet users to a competitor's website. It is a reasonable inference that Respondent's purpose of registration and use was to either disrupt or create confusion for Complainant's business in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) [and] (iv).”); see also 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)).
Furthermore, the disputed domain name is presumably financially
benefiting Respondent through the use of click through fees. The Panel finds this to be further evidence
of Respondent’s bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See 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.’”); see G.D. Searle & Co. v. Celebrex Drugstore, FA 123933 (Nat. Arb.
Forum Nov. 21, 2002) (finding that the respondent registered and used the
domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) because the respondent
was using the confusingly similar domain name to attract Internet users to its
commercial website).
The Panel concludes that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <enterprizetruckrental.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Judge Harold Kalina (Ret.). Panelist
Dated: October 22, 2007
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
National
Arbitration Forum