Vanguard Trademark Holdings
Claim Number: FA1002001305928
Complainant is Vanguard Trademark Holdings USA LLC (“Complainant”), represented by Renee
Reuter, of Vanguard Trademark Holdings USA LLC,
REGISTRAR
The domain name at issue is <nationalcarrenter.com>, registered with Directi Internet Solutions Pvt. Ltd. d/b/a Publicd.
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.
Bruce E. Meyerson as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to
the National Arbitration Forum electronically on
On
On February 11, 2010, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of March 3, 2010 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@nationalcarrenter.com by e-mail.
Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On
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:
1. Respondent’s <nationalcarrenter.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s NATIONAL CAR RENTAL mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <nationalcarrenter.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <nationalcarrenter.com> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, Vanguard
Trademark Holdings USA LLC, owns the NATIONAL CAR RENTAL mark and licenses it
to National Car Rental. National Car
Rental is a well-known car rental company that has been providing rental car
services to airport business travelers since 1948. Complainant holds multiple trademark
registrations for the NATIONAL CAR RENTAL and related marks with the United
States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 1,534,668 issued
Respondent, Blossom Holdings
Ltd c/o L. LaoWaiNok, registered the <nationalcarrenter.com>
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 owns trademark registrations for the NATIONAL
CAR RENTAL and related marks with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 1,534,668 issued
Complainant argues that Respondent’s <nationalcarrenter.com> disputed
domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s NATIONAL
Therefore, the Panel finds
that Respondent’s disputed domain name <nationalcarrenter.com>
is confusingly similar to Complainant’s NATIONAL
The Panel finds Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
Complainant contends that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Once Complainant puts forth a prima facie case, the burden shifts to Respondent to demonstrate that it does have rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name according to Policy ¶ 4(c). The Panel finds that Complainant has put forth a sufficient prima facie case in these proceedings. As Respondent failed to respond to the allegations made against it, the Panel may assume that Complainant’s allegations are true and that Respondent lacks any rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. See Talk City, Inc. v. Robertson, D2000-0009 (WIPO Feb. 29, 2000) (“Given Respondent’s failure to submit a substantive answer in a timely fashion, the Panel accepts as true all of the allegations of the complaint.”); see also Parfums Christian Dior v. QTR Corp., D2000-0023 (WIPO Mar. 9, 2000) (finding that by not submitting a response, the respondent has failed to invoke any circumstance which could demonstrate any rights or legitimate interests in the domain name). The Panel, however, elects to consider the evidence in record in light of the Policy ¶ 4(c) factors to determine whether Respondent has any rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
Complainant argues that Respondent is not commonly known by
the disputed domain and therefore lacks rights and legitimate interests in <nationalcarrenter.com>. The WHOIS information for the disputed domain
name does not reflect that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain
name. This failure of the WHOIS
information to associate Respondent with the disputed domain name and the lack
of other evidence supporting any connection between Respondent and the disputed
domain name establish that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed
domain and has no rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain
name. See Wells Fargo & Co. v. Onlyne Corp. Services11, Inc., FA 198969 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 17, 2003) (“Given the WHOIS contact information for the
disputed domain [name], one can infer that Respondent, Onlyne Corporate
Services11, is not commonly known by the name ‘welsfargo’ in any derivation.”);
see also Gallup, Inc. v. Amish Country Store, FA 96209 (Nat. Arb. Forum
Respondent’s disputed domain name redirects Internet users to a directory page featuring many links relating to car and vehicle rental services, including links to Complainant and Complainant’s competitors. The objective of such a site is presumably obtaining “click-through” fees for Respondent when Internet users click on a displayed link. Using the disputed domain name to operate such a directory site for Respondent’s own commercial gain, however, is not a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Fox News Network, LLC v. Reid, D2002-1085 (WIPO Feb. 18, 2003) (finding that the respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to generate revenue via advertisement and affiliate fees is not a bona fide offering of goods or services); see also Bank of Am. Corp. v. Northwest 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).”).
The Panel finds Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
Respondent’s disputed domain name redirects Internet users to Respondent’s directory site that advertises links not only to Complainant’s own website but also to the websites of Complainant’s competitors. This directory site clearly disrupts Complainant’s business because Internet users arriving at Respondent’s website may be enticed to click on a link sponsored by one of Complainant’s competitors instead of continuing on to Complainant’s site as they had originally intended. The Panel finds that Respondent’s efforts to disrupt Complainant’s business in this manner demonstrate bad faith registration and use according to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See Red Hat, Inc. v. Haecke, FA 726010 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 24, 2006) (finding that the respondent engaged in bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) by using the disputed domain names to operate a commercial search engine with links to the products of the complainant and to complainant’s competitors, as well as by diverting Internet users to several other domain names); see also Tesco Pers. Fin. Ltd. v. Domain Mgmt. Servs., FA 877982 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 13, 2007) (concluding that the use of a confusingly similar domain name to attract Internet users to a directory website containing commercial links to the websites of a complainant’s competitors represents bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)).
Respondent’s decision to use a domain name so similar to Complainant’s mark reveals an intent to attract Internet users who make slight errors when entering Complainant’s mark and searching for Complainant. Upon entering this disputed domain name, likely in error, the Internet user will find himself on Respondent’s website, with the choice to “click-through” to Complainant’s website using Respondent’s displayed link, click on a competitor’s link, or go back and re-enter Complainant’s mark in the address bar directly. If the Internet user does either of the first two options, the Respondent presumably will receive “click-through” fees resulting from the Internet user’s actions. The Panel finds Respondent’s attempts to profit by attracting and misleading Complainant’s intending customers constitute bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Velv, LLC v. AAE, FA 677922 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 25, 2006) (finding that the respondent’s use of the <arizonashuttle.net> domain name, which contained the complainant’s ARIZONA SHUTTLE mark, to attract Internet traffic to the respondent’s website offering competing travel services violated Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)); see also Allianz of Am. Corp. v. Bond, FA 680624 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 2, 2006) (finding bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where the respondent was diverting Internet users searching for the complainant to its own website and likely profiting).
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 <nationalcarrenter.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Bruce E. Meyerson, Panelist
Dated: March 23, 2010
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
National
Arbitration Forum