National Arbitration Forum




Enterprise Rent-A-Car Company v. UIH c/o Sompong Houdjung

Claim Number: FA0802001143472



Complainant is Enterprise Rent-A-Car Company (“Complainant”), represented by David R. Haarz, of Harness Dickey & Pierce P.L.C., Virginia, USA.  Respondent is UIH c/o Sompong Houdjung (“Respondent”), Thailand.



The domain name at issue is <>, registered with Dotster.



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.



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 <> 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 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.



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



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
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.





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.



It is the intention of the parties that the disputed domain name be transferred.  Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <> 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