Enterprise Rent-A-Car Company v. Pino Tedesco
Claim Number: FA0804001179220
Complainant is Enterprise Rent-A-Car Company (“Complainant”), represented by Elizabeth
K. Brock, of Harness, Dickey & Pierce, P.L.C.,
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <enterprisecar.info>, registered with GoDaddy.com, Inc.
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.
Judge Ralph Yachnin as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to
the National Arbitration Forum electronically on
24, 2008, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative
Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of
May 14, 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 firstname.lastname@example.org by e-mail.
Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On May 21, 29008, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Judge Ralph Yachnin 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:
name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <enterprisecar.info> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <enterprisecar.info> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, Enterprise Rent-A-Car Co., is the largest auto
rental business in
Respondent registered the <enterprisecar.info>
domain name on
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 registered the
Complainant contends that the <enterprisecar.info> domain name is confusingly similar to its
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
Complainant’s initial burden is to demonstrate that Respondent lacks all rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. When a prima facie case has been made, the burden shifts to Respondent to demonstrate that it has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Complainant has asserted that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Panel concludes that Complainant has made a prima facie case pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). See Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, D2000-0624 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000) (holding that once the complainant asserts that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the domain, the burden shifts to the respondent to provide “concrete evidence that it has rights to or legitimate interests in the domain name at issue”); see also 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.”).
The Panel may presume that Respondent has no rights or
legitimate interests because Respondent has not responded to the
Complaint. In American Express Co. v. Fang Suhendro, FA 129120 (Nat. Arb. Forum
Complainant contends that it has neither licensed nor
otherwise permitted Respondent to use its
Complainant maintains that Respondent is using the disputed
domain name to operate a web page where Internet users are directed to
third-party websites, some of which link to websites of Complainant’s
competitors. Complainant asserts that
this is not a bona fide use of the
disputed domain name. The
panel in Coryn Group, Inc. v. Media Insight, FA 198959 (Nat. Arb. Forum
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
Respondent is benefiting from the goodwill associated with
Furthermore, Respondent’s use is capable of disrupting
Complainant’s business because the web page that resolves from the disputed
domain name displays links to Complainant’s competitors. The panel in Southern Exposure
v. Southern Exposure, Inc., FA 94864 (Nat. Arb. Forum
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) has been satisfied.
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <enterprisecar.info> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Hon. Ralph Yachnin, Panelist
Justice, Supreme Court, NY (Ret.)
Dated: June 2, 2008
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
National Arbitration Forum