Enterprise Holdings, Inc. v. Domain Admin / Domain Admin
Claim Number: FA1010001349808
Complainant is Enterprise Holdings, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Renee Reuter of Enterprise Holdings, Inc., Missouri, USA. Respondent is Domain Admin / Domain Admin ("Respondent"), New Zealand.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <enterorise.com>, registered with REBEL.COM CORP.
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.
The Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.) as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on October 1, 2010; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on October 4, 2010.
On October 1, 2010, REBEL.COM CORP. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <enterorise.com> domain name is registered with REBEL.COM CORP. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. REBEL.COM CORP. has verified that Respondent is bound by the REBEL.COM CORP. registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).
On October 7, 2010, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of October 27, 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@enterorise.com. Also on October 7, 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.
Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On November 10, 2010, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed the Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.) 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" through submission of Electronic and Written Notices, as defined in Rule 1 and Rule 2. 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 <enterorise.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ENTERPRISE mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <enterorise.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <enterorise.com> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, Enterprise Holdings, Inc., holds numerous trademark registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) for the ENTERPRISE mark (e.g., Reg. No. 1,343,167 issued June 18, 1985). Complainant uses the ENTERPRISE mark in connection with car rental services.
Respondent registered the <enterorise.com> domain name on September 14, 2005. The disputed domain name resolves to a directory website that displays links to third-party websites that offer services that compete with Complainant’s services.
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 claims rights in the ENTERPRISE mark through its numerous registrations of the mark with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 1,343,167 issued June 18, 1985). The Panel finds these trademark registrations sufficiently prove Complainant’s rights in the ENTERPRISE mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). 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.”) Additionally, the Panel finds it is irrelevant whether Complainant holds trademark registrations with the trademark authority in the country in which Respondent resides. See Koninklijke KPN N.V. v. Telepathy Inc., D2001-0217 (WIPO May 7, 2001) (finding that the Policy does not require that the mark be registered in the country in which the respondent operates; therefore it is sufficient that the complainant can demonstrate a mark in some jurisdiction).
Complainant argues that the <enterorise.com> domain name is confusingly similar to its ENTERPRISE mark. Complainant contends Respondent misspells its mark. Respondent replaces the letter “p” in Complainant’s mark with the letter “o” in the disputed domain name. Respondent then affixes the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com” to Complainant’s mark. The Panel finds these slight alterations do not negate a finding of confusingly similar. See Belkin Components v. Gallant, FA 97075 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 29, 2001) (finding the <belken.com> domain name confusingly similar to the complainant's BELKIN mark because the name merely replaced the letter “i” in the complainant's mark with the letter “e”); see also Intelius, Inc. v. Hyn, FA 703175 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 5, 2006) (finding the <intellus.com> domain name to be confusingly similar to the complainant’s INTELIUS mark because the domain name differed from the mark by one letter and was visually similar); see also Reese v. Morgan, FA 917029 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 5, 2007) (finding that the mere addition of the generic top-level domain “.com” is insufficient to differentiate a disputed domain name from a mark). Therefore, the Panel determines Respondent’s <enterorise.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant must first make a prima facie case showing Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the <enterorise.com> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). The burden then shifts to Respondent to prove it has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Panel may view Respondent’s failure to submit a Response as evidence that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests. See Intel Corp. v. Macare, FA 660685 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 26, 2006) (finding the “complainant must first make a prima facie case that [the] respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), and then the burden shifts to [the] respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests.”); see also Am. Express Co. v. Fang Suhendro, FA 129120 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 30, 2002) (“[B]ased on Respondent's failure to respond, it is presumed that Respondent lacks all rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.”). Despite Respondent’s failure to respond, the Panel will evaluate the record to determine whether Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c).
Complainant asserts it has not licensed or otherwise permitted Respondent to use its ENTERPRISE mark in any way. Furthermore, the WHOIS information does not indicate that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. Without evidence to the contrary, the Panel determines that Respondent is not commonly known by the <enterorise.com> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Braun Corp. v. Loney, FA 699652 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 7, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain names where the WHOIS information, as well as all other information in the record, gave no indication that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain names, and the complainant had not authorized the respondent to register a domain name containing its registered mark); see also IndyMac Bank F.S.B. v. Eshback, FA 830934 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 7, 2006) (finding that the respondent failed to establish rights and legitimate interests in the <emitmortgage.com> domain name as the respondent was not authorized to register domain names featuring the complainant’s mark and failed to submit evidence of that it is commonly known by the disputed domain name).
Complainant alleges the <enterorise.com> domain name resolves to a website that provides hyperlinks to third-party websites that offer car rental services that compete with Complainant’s car rental services. Complainant also alleges the resolving website provides hyperlinks to Complainant’s website. A screen shot of the resolving website shows hyperlinks with titles like “Hertz Rental Car,” “Avis Car Rentals,” and “Enterprise Rent-A-Car.” The Panel presumes that Respondent profits from its use of the disputed domain name through the receipt of click-through fees. Therefore, the Panel finds Respondent does not use the <enterorise.com> domain name for 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 Disney Enters., Inc. v. Kamble, FA 918556 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 27, 2007) (holding that the operation of a pay-per-click website at a confusingly similar domain name was not 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 also ALPITOUR S.p.A. v. balata inc, FA 888649 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 27, 2007) (finding that “using the confusingly similar <viaggidea.com> domain name to operate a website that features links to various commercial websites from which Respondent presumably receives referral fees….is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate non-commercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”).
The Panel finds that Respondent incorporates a common misspelling of
Complainant’s mark in the disputed domain name and that this practice qualifies
as typosquatting. Therefore, the Panel finds Respondent’s typosquatting
behavior provides additional evidence that Respondent lacks rights and
legitimate interests in the <enterorise.com> domain name under
Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). See Microsoft Corp. v. Domain Registration Philippines, FA 877979 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 20, 2007) (concluding that by
registering the <microssoft.com> domain name, the respondent had “engaged
in typosquatting, which provides additional evidence that [the] respondent
lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy
¶ 4(a)(ii).”); see also LTD Commodities LLC v.
Party Night, Inc., FA 165155 (Nat.
Arb. Forum Aug. 14, 2003) (finding that the <ltdcommadities.com>,
<ltdcommmodities.com>, and <ltdcommodaties.com> domain
names were intentional misspellings of Complainant's LTD COMMODITIES mark
and this “‘typosquatting’ is evidence that Respondent lacks rights or
legitimate interests in the disputed domain names”).
The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
The Panel finds that Respondent’s resolving website displays hyperlinks that connect to Complainant’s competitors. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the <enterorise.com> domain name disrupts Complainant’s business, which constitutes bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See 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)); see also Persohn v. Lim, FA 874447 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 19, 2007) (finding bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) where a respondent used the disputed domain name to operate a commercial search engine with links to the complainant’s competitors).
As previously discussed, the <enterorise.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ENTERPRISE mark. Moreover, Respondent likely profits from its use of the domain name through the receipt of click-through fees. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent’s site. Accordingly, the Panel finds that this behavior amounts to bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See T-Mobile USA, Inc. v. utahhealth, FA 697821 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 7, 2006) (holding that the registration and use of a domain name confusingly similar to a complainant’s mark to direct Internet traffic to a commercial “links page” in order to profit from click-through fees or other revenue sources constitutes bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)); see also MySpace, Inc. v. Myspace Bot, FA 672161 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 19, 2006) (holding that the respondent registered and used the <myspacebot.com> domain name in bad faith by diverting Internet users seeking the complainant’s website to its own website for commercial gain because the respondent likely profited from this diversion scheme).
Finally, the Panel finds Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to engage in typosquatting provides additional evidence of bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See The Vanguard Group, Inc. v. IQ Mgmt. Corp., FA 328127 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 28, 2004) (“By engaging in typosquatting, [r]espondent has registered and used the <vangard.com> domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).”); see also Nat’l Ass’n of Prof’l Baseball League, Inc. v. Zuccarini, D2002-1011 (WIPO Jan. 21, 2003) (“Typosquatting … is the intentional misspelling of words with [the] intent to intercept and siphon off traffic from its intended destination, by preying on Internauts who make common typing errors. Typosquatting is inherently parasitic and of itself evidence of bad faith.”).
The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <enterorise.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
The Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.), Panelist
Dated: November 16, 2010
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page