National Arbitration Forum

 

DECISION

 

Enterprise Holdings, Inc. v. (Undisclosed)

Claim Number: FA1007001337431

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Enterprise Holdings, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Renee Reuter, of Enterprise Holdings, Inc., Missouri, USA.  The Respondent’s name has not been disclosed.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <enterpriise.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, Inc.

 

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.

 

Richard DiSalle as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

 

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on July 26, 2010.

 

On July 27, 2010, GoDaddy.com, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <enterpriise.com> domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, Inc. and that the Respondent is the current registrant of the name.  GoDaddy.com, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, Inc. 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 July 30, 2010, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 19, 2010 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@enterpriise.com by e-mail.  Also on July 30, 2010, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the email addresses served and the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to Respondent via post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts.

 

A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on August 19, 2010.

 

On August 30, 2010, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Richard DiSalle as Panelist.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

 

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

 

PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS

 

A. Complainant

 

Complainant, Enterprise Holdings, Inc., is the owner of the ENTERPRISE mark(s) which it licenses to Enterprise Rent-A-Car Company.  Started in 1974, ENTERPRISE is an internationally recognized brand serving the daily rental needs of the customers throughout the United States, Canada, Ireland, Germany and the United Kingdom.  Enterprise also is the largest car rental provider to international travelers visiting North America.  Complainant’s licensee operates an on-line car rental site at <enterprise.com>.

 

The domain name, <enterpriise.com>, is confusingly similar to Complainant’s registered ENTERPRISE mark(s). The domain name at issue, <enterpriise.com>, fully incorporates and misspells Complainant’s ENTERPRISE mark(s).

 

Complainant’s US registrations for ENTERPRISE for rent a car services issued in 6/18/1985 and pre-date the initial registration of the <enterpriise.com> by more than 15 years.  Although the <enterpriise.com> was registered in September 2001, the remedies under the Policy are injunctive rather than compensatory in nature, and the concern is to         avoid ongoing or future confusion as to the source of communications, goods, or services.

 

            Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The

disputed domain name resolves to a web page that contains links to car rental providers, and websites that offer car rental services and discounts. The primary area of the <enterpriise.com> web page consists of links to websites that offer links to Complainant’s website and links to the home page of Hertz Car Rental (Complainant’s competitor), and sites that offer rent a car services from Complainant and its competitors under the headings “Minivan for Rent”, “Enterprise Car”, “Car Rental Discounts”, “Local Car Rental”, “Cheapest Airport Rental”, “Hertz Car Coupons” and “Kangaroo Island Rental       Car”.

 

The facts of record suggest and support a finding that Respondent both registered and is using the domain name at issue in bad faith. That Respondent registered a domain name that is a commonly used alternative of Complainant’s ENTERPRISE mark(s) evidences a clear intent to trade upon the goodwill associated with Complainant’s ENTERPRISE mark(s) for car rental services.

 

From Respondent’s web page it is clear that Respondent has set up the <enterpriise.com> website with a view to commercial gain from “click-through” payments from Internet users who mistakenly type “enterpriise.com” instead of “enterprise.com” trying to reach Complainant’s web site. Although some visitors may realize their mistake, there will inevitably be a number who do “click through”. The very essence of setting up the <enterpriise.com> website must be that it does result in commercial gain from Internet users accessing websites through the <enterpriise.com> web site. Clearly Respondent does not operate a business known as “Enterpriise” nor, to the best of Complainant’s knowledge, does it advertise under that name.

 

B. Respondent

 

Respondent makes no contentions with regards to Confusing Similarity (4(a)(i)), Rights or Legitimate Interests (4(a)(ii)) or Registration in Bad Faith (4(a)(iii)).

 

FINDINGS

 

(1)   the domain name registered by the Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;

(2)   the 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.

 

DISCUSSION

 

Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (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.”

 

The Panel finds Respondent is a victim of identity theft, and has redacted Respondent’s personal information from this decision to prevent the further victimization of Respondent.  Wells Fargo & Co. v. John Doe as Holder of Domain Name <wellzfargo.com>, FA 362108 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 30, 2004) and Wells Fargo & Co. v. John Doe as Holder of Domain Name <wellsfargossl>, FA 453727 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 19, 2005).

 

The Panel finds that the entity that Responded to the Complaint is not the registrant of the disputed domain name for the instant proceedings, and that the registrant of the domain name in question registered the name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) by providing false or misleading WHOIS information to the registrar.  See Home Dir., Inc. v. HomeDirector, D2000-0111, (WIPO Apr. 11, 2000) (finding that providing false or misleading information in connection with the registration of the domain name is evidence of bad faith); see also Video Direct Distribs. Inc. v. Video Direct, Inc., FA 94724 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 5, 2000) (finding that the respondent acted in bad faith by providing incorrect information to the registrar regarding the owner of the registered name).

 

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that the Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred:

 

(4)   the domain name registered by the Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;

(5)   the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and

(6)   the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

 

Complainant has submitted evidence to show that it possesses multiple trademark registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") for its ENTERPRISE mark (e.g., Reg. No. 1,343,167 issued June 18, 1985).  The Panel finds that Complainant has established rights in its ENTERPRISE mark under Policy ¶             4(a)(i) through its trademark registrations with the USPTO.  See Expedia, Inc. v. Tan, FA 991075 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 29, 2007) (“As the [complainant’s] mark is registered with the USPTO, [the] complainant has met the requirements of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”); see also Microsoft Corp. v. Burkes, FA 652743 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 17, 2006) (“Complainant has established rights in the MICROSOFT mark through registration of the mark with the USPTO.”).

 

Complainant alleges that the <enterpriise.com> domain name is confusingly similar to its ENTERPRISE mark.  Complainant alleges that the domain name contains a misspelled version of its mark by adding the letter “i” while also adding the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com.”  The Panel finds that the <enterpriise.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ENTERPRISE mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).  See Reuters Ltd. v. Global Net 2000, Inc., D2000-0441 (WIPO July 13, 2000) (finding that a domain name which differs by only one letter from a trademark has a greater tendency to be confusingly similar to the trademark where the trademark is highly distinctive).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

 

Complainant alleges that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, and that Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use its ENTERPRISE mark in any way.  The Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).  See Braun Corp. v. Loney, FA 699652 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 7, 2006).  The Panel finds that Respondent is not using the disputed domain name in connection with 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).

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

 

The Panel finds that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to display various third-party links to Complainant’s official website and to the websites of Complainant’s competitors, presumably for financial gain, is further evidence of Respondent’s bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).  See Red Hat, Inc. v. Haecke, FA 726010 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 24, 2006).

 

The Panel finds that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to redirect Internet users to Complainant’s competitors in the car rental industry is evidence of Bad Faith.  See Red Hat, Inc. v. Haecke, FA 726010 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 24, 2006).

 

DECISION

The Complainant having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <enterpriise.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Richard DiSalle, Panelist
Dated: September 12, 2010

 

 

 

National Arbitration Forum