national arbitration forum

 

DECISION

 

Enterprise Rent-A-Car Company v. Ramet Petsumrit

Claim Number: FA0711001115177

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Enterprise Rent-A-Car Company (“Complainant”), represented by David R. Haarz, of Harness, Dickey & Pierce PLC, 11730 Plaza America Dr., Suite 600, Reston, VA 20190.  Respondent is Ramet Petsumrit (“Respondent”), 5/551, Ladprao 10230 BKK Thailand.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <enterprise-car-rental-reviews.info>, registered with Dotster.

 

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.

 

James A. Carmody, Esq., as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on November 29, 2007; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on November 30, 2007.

 

On November 29, 2007, Dotster confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <enterprise-car-rental-reviews.info> domain name is registered with Dotster and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name.  Dotster has verified that Respondent is bound by the Dotster 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 November 30, 2007, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of December 20, 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@enterprise-car-rental-reviews.info by e-mail.

 

Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.

 

On December 27, 2007, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed James A. Carmody, Esq., 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.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A.  Complainant makes the following assertions:

 

1.      Respondent’s <enterprise-car-rental-reviews.info> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ENTERPRISE mark.

 

2.      Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <enterprise-car-rental-reviews.info> domain name.

 

3.      Respondent registered and used the <enterprise-car-rental-reviews.info> domain name in bad faith.

 

B.  Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant, Enterprise Rent-a-Car Company, provides car rental services in the United States and internationally and has marketed its product under the ENTERPRISE mark since 1969.  Complainant operates an on-line car rental site at <enterprise.com> and owns the <enterprisecarrental.info> domain name.  Complainant registered the ENTERPRISE mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office on June 18, 1985 (Reg. No. 1,343,167).

 

Respondent registered the enterprise-car-rental-reviews.info> domain name on July 7, 2007.  Until recently, the website that resolved from the disputed domain name used the title “Enterprise Car Rental,” advertised links to websites unrelated to Complainant or car rental services, and included links to Complainant’s legitimate website and Complainant’s competitors.  

 

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."

 

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.

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

 

Complainant has registered the ENTERPRISE mark with the USPTO, and therefore established rights to the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).  See Innomed Techs., Inc. v. DRP Servs., FA 221171 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 18, 2004) (“Registration of the NASAL-AIRE mark with the USPTO establishes Complainant's rights in the mark; see also Vivendi Universal Games v. XBNetVentures Inc., FA 198803 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 11, 2003) (“Complainant's federal trademark registrations establish Complainant's rights in the BLIZZARD mark.”).

 

The <enterprise-car-rental-reviews.info> domain name is confusingly similar to the ENTERPRISE mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).  The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant’s entire mark and includes the generic terms “car,” “rental,” and “reviews” which have an obvious connection to Complainant’s car rental services.  The addition of generic terms to the registered mark does not sufficiently distinguish the disputed domain name from the ENTERPRISE mark.  Because all domain names are required to have a top-level domain, the addition of the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.info” does not distinguish the disputed domain name from Complainant’s mark.  Moreover, Respondent’s use of hyphens in the disputed domain name does not sufficiently distinguish the <enterprise-car-rental-reviews.info> domain name from the registered mark because punctuation is inconsequential in determining whether a disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a registered mark.  Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the ENTERPRISE mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).  See Rollerblade, Inc. v. McCrady, D2000-0429 (WIPO June 25, 2000) (finding that the top level of the domain name such as “.net” or “.com” does not affect the domain name for the purpose of determining whether it is identical or confusingly similar); see also Health Devices Corp. v. Aspen S T C, FA 158254 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 1, 2003) (“[T]he addition of punctuation marks such as hyphens is irrelevant in the determination of confusing similarity pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”); see also Space Imaging LLC v. Brownell, AF-0298 (eResolution Sept. 22, 2000) (finding confusing similarity where the respondent’s domain name combines the complainant’s mark with a generic term that has an obvious relationship to the complainant’s business).

 

The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.        

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

 

Complainant contends that Respondent has neither rights nor legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.  Complainant must first present a prima facie case establishing that Respondent lacks all rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.  Once Complainant has met the burden and made a prima facie case supporting the assertion that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests, the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.  The Panel finds that Complainant has demonstrated that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests, and thus made a prima facie case pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).  See Compagnie Generale des Matieres Nucleaires v. Greenpeace Int’l, D2001-0376 (WIPO May 14, 2001) (“Proving that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name requires the Complainant to prove a negative. For the purposes of this sub paragraph, however, it is sufficient for the Complainant to show a prima facie case and the burden of proof is then shifted on to the shoulders of Respondent.  In those circumstances, the common approach is for respondents to seek to bring themselves within one of the examples of paragraph 4(c) or put forward some other reason why they can fairly be said to have a relevant right or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name in question.”); 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). 

 

The Panel presumes that Respondent lacks all rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name because Respondent failed to answer the Complaint.  See Bank of Am. Corp. v. McCall, FA 135012 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 31, 2002) (“Respondent's failure to respond not only results in its failure to meet its burden, but also will be viewed as evidence itself that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.”); see also Pavillion Agency, Inc. v. Greenhouse Agency Ltd., D2000-1221 (WIPO Dec. 4, 2000) (finding that the respondents’ failure to respond can be construed as an admission that they have no legitimate interest in the domain names).  Despite Respondent’s failure to respond, the Panel will examine all evidence in the record to determine if Respondent has rights or legitimate interests under Policy ¶ 4(c).

 

Complainant asserts that Respondent has never been authorized to use the ENTERPRISE mark, and that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name.  Moreover, the WHOIS information does not indicate that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name.  The Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).  See Tercent Inc. v. Lee Yi, FA 139720 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 10, 2003) (stating “nothing in Respondent’s WHOIS information implies that Respondent is ‘commonly known by’ the disputed domain name” as one factor in determining that Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) does not apply); see also Gallup, Inc. v. Amish Country Store, FA 96209 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 23, 2001) (finding that the respondent does not have rights in a domain name when the respondent is not known by the mark).

 

In addition, Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to advertise links to unrelated and competing websites does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).  See Bank of Am. Corp. v. Nw. Free Cmty. Access, FA 180704 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 30, 2003) (“Respondent's demonstrated intent to divert Internet users seeking Complainant's website to a website of Respondent and for Respondent's benefit is not a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and it is not a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”); see also TM Acquisition Corp. v. Sign Guards, FA 132439 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 31, 2002) (finding that the respondent’s diversionary use of the complainant’s marks to send Internet users to a website which displayed a series of links, some of which linked to the complainant’s competitors, was not a bona fide offering of goods or services).

 

The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

 

Complainant asserts that Respondent was using the <enterprise-car-rental-reviews.info> domain name for commercial gain by advertising links to unrelated competing services as well as using the ENTERPRISE mark on the website that resolved from the disputed domain name, thus benefiting from the likely confusion between Complainant’s mark and the disputed domain name.  Complainant also contends that Respondent was commercially benefiting by receiving “click-through” fees.  The disputed domain name is capable of creating confusion as to Complainant’s source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the competing services advertised on the website that resolved from the disputed domain name.  The Panel finds that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name constitutes evidence of registration and use in bad faith under 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 also Drs. Foster & Smith, Inc. v. Lalli, FA 95284 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 21, 2000) (finding bad faith where the respondent directed Internet users seeking the complainant’s site to its own website for commercial gain).

 

The Panel finds that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to advertise competing products also constitutes registration and use in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).  See S. Exposure v. S. Exposure, Inc., FA 94864 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 18, 2000) (finding the respondent acted in bad faith by attracting Internet users to a website that competes with the complainant’s business); see also 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).”). 

 

The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) has been satisfied.

 

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 <enterprise-car-rental-reviews.info> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

James A. Carmody, Esq., Panelist

Dated:  January 10, 2008

 

 

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

 

Click Here to return to our Home Page

 

National Arbitration Forum