Enterprise Rent-A-Car
Company v.
Claim Number: FA0710001100700
PARTIES
Complainant is Enterprise Rent-A-Car Company (“Complainant”), represented by Robert
Schultz, of Schultz & Little, L.L.P.,
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <emterpriserentacar.com>, registered
with Compana,
LLC.
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.
Flip Petillion as Panelist.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum
electronically on October 23, 2007; the
National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on October 26, 2007.
On October 26, 2007, the parties jointly requested that the instant
proceedings be stayed. The Forum
subsequently granted the request.
On December 10, 2007, Complainant requested that the stay be lifted and
the Forum granted this request.
On December 11, 2007, Compana, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the
National Arbitration Forum that the <emterpriserentacar.com> domain name
is registered with Compana, LLC and that
the Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Compana, LLC
has verified that Respondent is bound by the Compana,
LLC 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 December 18, 2007, a
Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the
“Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline of January 7, 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@emterpriserentacar.com
by e-mail.
A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on January 7, 2008.
On January 14, 2008, pursuant to Complainant’s
request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National
Arbitration Forum appointed Flip Petillion as Panelist.
RELIEF SOUGHT
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from
Respondent to Complainant.
PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS
A. Complainant
1. The <emterpriserentacar.com> domain name is identical or confusingly
similar to Complainant's mark.
2. Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest
in the <emterpriserentacar.com> domain name.
3. Respondent has
registered and used the <emterpriserentacar.com> domain name
in bad faith.
B. Respondent
Respondent is prepared to transfer the domain
name.
FINDINGS
Complainant holds a series of trade mark registrations.
Complainant has registered its trade marks in connection with car and other vehicle rental, leasing and sales services, and those trade marks have been used in those businesses since 1985.
Respondent registered the domain name <emterpriserentacar.com>.
DISCUSSION
Respondent does not contest any of
Complainant’s allegations regarding the <emterpriserentacar.com> domain
name. Rather, Respondent has
consented to judgment in favor of Complainant and authorized the immediate
transfer of the subject domain name.
The Panel finds that in a
circumstance such as this, where Respondent has consented to the transfer of
the disputed domain name, the Panel may decide to forego the traditional UDRP
analysis and order the immediate transfer of the domain name. See Boehringer Ingelheim Int’l GmbH v.
Modern Ltd. – Cayman Web Dev., FA 133625 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 9, 2003)
(transferring the domain name registration where the respondent stipulated to
the transfer); see also Malev Hungarian Airlines, Ltd. v. Vertical Axis Inc.,
FA 212653 (Nat Arb. Forum Jan. 13, 2004) (“In this case, the parties have both
asked for the domain name to be transferred to the Complainant . . . Since
the requests of the parties in this case are identical, the Panel has no scope
to do anything other than to recognize the common request, and it has no
mandate to make findings of fact or of compliance (or not) with the Policy.”); see
also Disney Enters., Inc. v. Morales, FA 475191 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 24,
2005) (“[U]nder such circumstances, where Respondent has agreed to comply with
Complainant’s request, the Panel felt it to be expedient and judicial to forego
the traditional UDRP analysis and order the transfer of the domain names.”).
Accordingly,
this Panel finds that the disputed domain name can be transferred to the
Complainant without determination of any other element.
DECISION
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy,
the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <emterpriserentacar.com> domain name
be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Flip Petillion, Panelist
Dated: January 28, 2008
Click Here to return
to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click
Here to return to our Home Page
National
Arbitration Forum