Enterprise Rent-A-Car
Company v. UIH c/o Sompong Houdjung
Claim Number: FA0802001143472
PARTIES
Complainant is Enterprise Rent-A-Car Company (“Complainant”), represented by David
R. Haarz, of Harness Dickey & Pierce P.L.C.,
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <car-enterprise-online.info>,
registered with Dotster.
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.
Debrett Gordon Lyons as Panelist.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum
electronically on February 8, 2008; the
National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on February 11, 2008.
On February 11, 2008, Dotster confirmed by e-mail to the National
Arbitration Forum that the <car-enterprise-online.info> domain
name is registered with Dotster and that
the 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 February 19, 2008, a
Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the
“Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline of March 10, 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@car-enterprise-online.info
by e-mail.
An electronic Response was received on March 10, 2008. However, the Response is deemed deficient
pursuant to ICANN Rule 5 because a hard copy of the Response was not received
prior to the Response deadline.
On March 21, 2008 pursuant to Complainant’s
request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National
Arbitration Forum appointed Debrett G. Lyons as Panelist.
RELIEF SOUGHT
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from
Respondent to Complainant.
PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS
A. Complainant
Complainant asserts trademark rights and
alleges that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark.
Complainant alleges that Respondent has no
rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
Complainant alleges that Respondent
registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent
Respondent did not lodge a formal Response but sent the following email
to the Forum:
From: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 1:31 AM
To: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Enterprise Rent-A-Car Company v UIH c/o Sompong Houdjung -
FA0802001143472
Hi
What do i do for next step.This is my domain buy form dotster on last years on
7/7/07 only .77 $.If more problem I can ignore that.Why you make me more
ploblem .I buy in correct term.I anybody want this domain .You can transfer
that to them.
Thank
Sompong
FINDINGS
Preliminary
Procedural Issue
A preliminary issue arises as to whether the
Panel has a proper mandate to decide this case under the Policy given that Complainant
calls for transfer of the disputed domain name and Respondent answers by
offering its consent to transfer of the domain name.
In the case of Disney Enterprises., Inc.
v. Morales, FA 475191 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 24, 2005), it was said that “where Respondent has agreed to
comply with Complainant’s request [to transfer the domain name], the Panel felt it to be expedient and judicial to forego
the traditional UDRP analysis and order the transfer of the domain names.” In Malev Hungarian
Airlines, Ltd. v. Vertical Axis Inc., FA 212653 (Nat Arb. Forum Jan.
13, 2004) the panel decided that “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 Boehringer Ingelheim Int’l GmbH
v. Modern Ltd. – Cayman Web Dev., FA 133625 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 9,
2003).
The Panel finds that it has no mandate to
apply the Policy in circumstances such as these where the intentions of the
parties coincide. Although Respondent has
not named Complainant as the specific transferee, the February 21, 2008 email
refers by title to the dispute and, in spite of the broken English, it can be
understood that consent to transfer of the disputed domain name to Complainant
is contemplated.
DECISION
It is the intention of the parties that the
disputed domain name be transferred.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <car-enterprise-online.info> domain name be TRANSFERRED
from Respondent to Complainant.
Debrett G. Lyons, Panelist
Dated: April 2, 2008
Click Here to return
to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click
Here to return to our Home Page
National
Arbitration Forum