Enterprise Holdings, Inc. v Gene Frazier
Claim Number: FA1104001381716
Complainant is Enterprise Holdings, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Renee Reuter of Enterprise Holdings, Inc., Missouri, USA. Respondent is Gene Frazier (“Respondent”), New York, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <enterprizerentalcar.net>, registered with GoDaddy.com.
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.
Tyrus R. Atkinson, Jr., as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on April 4, 2011; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on April 4, 2011.
On April 4, 2011, GoDaddy.com confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <enterprizerentalcar.net> domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GoDaddy.com has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com 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 April 5, 2011, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of April 25, 2011 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@enterprizerentalcar.net. Also on April 5, 2011, 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 May 3, 2011, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Tyrus R. Atkinson, Jr., 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 <enterprizerentalcar.net> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ENTERPRISE mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <enterprizerentalcar.net> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <enterprizerentalcar.net> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, Enterprise Holdings, Inc., is an international car-rental company. Complainant has a registered trademark for its ENTERPRISE mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 1,343,167 issued June 18, 1985). Complainant uses the mark to support and promote its car rental business.
Respondent, Gene Frazier, registered the <enterprizerentalcar.net> domain name on October 27, 2010. The disputed domain name resolves to a website featuring advertisements for, and hyperlinks to, Complainant’s competitors in the car rental business. Respondent presumably receives click-through fees from these linked sites.
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 alleges it has established rights in the ENTERPRISE mark based on its registration of the mark with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 1,343,167 issued June 18, 1985). Previous panels have determined that registration with a federal trademark authority is sufficient to establish rights in a mark. See Paisley Park Enters. v. Lawson, FA 384834 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 1, 2005) (finding that the complainant had established rights in the PAISLEY PARK mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through registration of the mark with the USPTO); 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.”). Based upon that registration, the Panel finds that Complainant has established its rights in the ENTERPRISE mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant also alleges that Respondent’s <enterprizerentalcar.net> domain name is confusingly similar to its ENTERPRISE mark. The disputed domain name includes a phonetic misspelling of the mark by interchanging the letter “z” with the letter “s.” The disputed domain name also adds the descriptive terms “rental” and “car,” along with the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.net.” The Panel finds that Respondent has failed to differentiate its disputed domain name from Complainant’s ENTERPRISE mark, making the two confusingly similar under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). 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 Experian Info. Solutions, Inc. v. Credit Research, Inc., D2002-0095 (WIPO May 7, 2002) (finding that several domain names incorporating the complainant’s entire EXPERIAN mark and merely adding the term “credit” were confusingly similar to the complainant’s mark); see also Jerry Damson, Inc. v. Tex. Int’l Prop. Assocs., FA 916991 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 10, 2007) (“The mere addition of a generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com” does not serve to adequately distinguish the Domain Name from the mark.”).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been established.
Complainant contends that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the <enterprizerentalcar.net> domain name. Previous panels have found that a complainant making a prima facie showing in support of its allegations shifts the burden to the respondent to prove that it has rights or legitimate interests pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). The Panel finds that Complainant has made a prima facie showing and because Respondent failed to make a timely response, the Panel may assume that it does not have rights or legitimate interests in the <enterprizerentalcar.net> domain name. However, the Panel will examine whether the record shows Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the <enterprizerentalcar.net> domain name according to the Policy ¶ 4(c) factors. See Domtar, Inc. v. Theriault., FA 1089426 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 4, 2008) (“It is well established that, once a complainant has made out a prima facie case in support of its allegations, the burden shifts to respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.”); see also Broadcom Corp. v. Ibecom PLC, FA 361190 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 22, 2004) (“Respondent’s failure to respond to the Complaint functions as an implicit admission that [Respondent] lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. It also allows the Panel to accept all reasonable allegations set forth…as true.”).
Complainant asserts that Respondent is not commonly known by the <enterprizerentalcar.net> domain name. Respondent has offered no evidence to support a finding that it is commonly known by the disputed domain name. The WHOIS information identifies the registrant as “Gene Frazier,” which this Panel finds is not similar to the <enterprizerentalcar.net> domain name. Therefore, the Panel also finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and lacks rights and legitimate interests pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See M. Shanken Commc’ns v. WORLDTRAVELERSONLINE.COM, FA 740335 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 3, 2006) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <cigaraficionada.com> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) based on the WHOIS information and other evidence in the record); see also Coppertown Drive-Thru Sys., LLC v. Snowden, FA 715089 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 17, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <coppertown.com> domain name where there was no evidence in the record, including the WHOIS information, suggesting that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain name).
The <enterprizerentalcar.net> domain name resolves to a website that Respondent uses to post advertisements and links to Complainant’s competitors’ websites in the car rental business. It is presumed that Respondent financially benefits from click-through fees associated with the disputed domain name. The Panel finds that Respondent’s use of a confusingly similar domain name to operate a website featuring links to Complainant’s competitors is not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Jerry Damson, Inc. v. Tex. Int’l Prop. Assocs., FA 916991 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 10, 2007) (concluding that the use of a confusingly similar domain name to operate a portal with hyperlinks to various third-party websites, some of which may be in direct competition with a complainant, does not constitute 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 Expedia, Inc. v. Compaid, FA 520654 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 30, 2005) (finding that the respondent’s use of the <expediate.com> domain name to redirect Internet users to a website featuring links to travel services that competed with the complainant was not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been established.
Respondent’s <enterprizerentalcar.net> domain name resolves to a website featuring hyperlinks, the majority of which resolve to Complainant’s competitors in the car rental business. Complainant alleges that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name disrupts its business because Internet users intending to find and use Complainant’s services may purchase the same services from competitors as a result of Respondent’s use of the disputed <enterprizerentalcar.net> domain name. Complainant argues that this diminishes the amount of customers purchasing Complainant’s services. The Panel finds that Respondent’s use of the <enterprizerentalcar.net> domain name does disrupt Complainant’s business, which constitutes bad faith registration and use 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 Am. Online, Inc. v. Tapia, FA 328159 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 1, 2004) (“Respondent is referring Internet traffic that seeks out the <aol.tv> domain name to a competitor’s news site. The Panel strongly finds that appropriating Complainant’s mark to refer customers seeking Complainant to Complainant’s competitors is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).”).
Respondent presumably receives click-through fees from the links listed on the site to which the disputed domain name resolves. Internet users searching for Complainant may find Respondent’s website instead of Complainant’s because of Respondent’s use of a confusingly similar disputed domain name. Complainant alleges that Respondent benefits from this confusion through the receipt of click-through fees. The Panel finds that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name therefore constitutes bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Zee TV USA, Inc. v. Siddiqi, FA 721969 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 18, 2006) (finding that the respondent engaged in bad faith registration and use by using a domain name that was confusingly similar to the complainant’s mark to offer links to third-party websites that offered services similar to those offered by the complainant); see also Asbury Auto. Group, Inc. v. Tex. Int’l Prop. Assocs., FA 958542 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 29, 2007) (finding that the respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to advertise car dealerships that competed with the complainant’s business would likely lead to confusion among Internet users as to the sponsorship or affiliation of those competing dealerships, and was therefore evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) has been established.
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <enterprizerentalcar.net> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Tyrus R. Atkinson, Jr., Panelist
Dated: May 13, 2011
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page