national arbitration forum

 

DECISION

 

Enterprise Holdings, Inc. v. Venkateshwara Distributor Private Limited

Claim Number: FA1104001384306

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Enterprise Holdings, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Renee Reuter of Enterprise Holdings, Inc., Missouri, USA.  Respondent is Venkateshwara Distributor Private Limited (“Respondent”), India.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <enterprisetentacar.com>, registered with Tirupati Domains and Hosting Private Limited.

 

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.

 

The Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.) as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on April 18, 2011; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on April 18, 2011.

 

On April 19, 2011, Tirupati Domains and Hosting Private Limited confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <enterprisetentacar.com> domain name is registered with Tirupati Domains and Hosting Private Limited and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name.  Tirupati Domains and Hosting Private Limited has verified that Respondent is bound by the Tirupati Domains and Hosting Private Limited 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 20, 2011, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of May 10, 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@enterprisetentacar.com.  Also on April 20, 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 13, 2011, 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.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

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

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A.  Complainant makes the following assertions:

 

1.    Respondent’s <enterprisetentacar.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ENTERPRISE mark.

 

2.    Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <enterprisetentacar.com> domain name.

 

3.    Respondent registered and used the <enterprisetentacar.com> domain name in bad faith.

 

B.  Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant, Enterprise Holdings, Inc., is an international car rental company.  Complainant has multiple registrations for the 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 in connection with its car rental products and services.

 

Respondent, Venkateshwara Distributor Private Limited, registered the disputed domain name September 9, 2006.  The disputed domain name resolves to a website offering links to Complainant’s website and to the websites of Complainant’s competitors.  Respondent presumably receives click-through fees from the linked sites.

 

DISCUSSION

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.

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

 

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, regardless of whether that mark was registered in the country of respondent’s residence.  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 Renaissance Hotel Holdings, Inc. v. Renaissance Cochin, FA 932344 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 23, 2007) (finding that it does not matter whether the complainant has registered its trademark in the country in which the respondent resides, only that it can establish rights in some jurisdiction).  Therefore, the Panel finds that Complainant has established its rights in the ENTERPRISE mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) by registering that mark with the USPTO.

 

Complainant contends Respondent’s <enterprisetentacar.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ENTERPRISE mark.  The disputed domain name incorporates all of Complainant’s ENTERPRISE mark while adding the words “tent,” “a,” and “car.”  The words added, tent being a misspelling of rent, make the mark even more confusing due to Complainant being a participant in the rent-a-car industry. Additionally, Respondent added the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com” to Complainant’s mark.  The Panel finds that Respondent’s <enterprisetentacar.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ENTERPRISE mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).  See Whitney Nat’l Bank v. Easynet Ltd, FA 944330 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 30, 2007) (“The additions of generic words with an obvious relationship to Complainant’s business and a gTLD renders the disputed domain name confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”); 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).

 

The Panel finds Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been established.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

 

The Panel finds that Complainant has met its initial burden of proof by making a prima facie showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the <enterprisetentacar.com> domain name.  The burden now lies with Respondent to prove that it has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name because of Complainant’s prima facie showing. 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.”).  Respondent failed to file a response in this matter allowing this Panel to assume it lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.  See 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.”).  However, the Panel will still examine the record in its entirety to determine whether Respondent retains rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name according to the factors listed in Policy ¶ 4(c).

 

Complainant alleges that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name.  The WHOIS information identifies registrant as “Venkateshwara Distributor Private Limited,” which is not similar to the <enterprisetentacar.com> domain name.  Respondent has offered no evidence to prove this it is commonly known by the disputed domain name.  Therefore, based on the evidence in the record the Panel finds that Respondent’s disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ENTERPRISE mark under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).  See Tercent Inc. v. Lee Yi, FA 139720 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 10, 2003) (stating “nothing in Respondent’s WHOIS information implies that Respondent is ‘commonly known by’ the disputed domain name” as one factor in determining that Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) does not apply); see also 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).

 

Complainant also alleges that the Respondent is not engaging in a bona fide offering of goods or services or making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name.  Respondent’s disputed domain name resolves to a site offering a links to Complainant and Complainant’s competitors in the rental car business.  This Panel finds that this usage does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See 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)); see also Tesco Pers. Fin. Ltd. v. Domain Mgmt. Servs., FA 877982 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 13, 2007) (finding that the respondent was not using the <tesco-finance.com> domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use by maintaining a web page with misleading links to the complainant’s competitors in the financial services industry).

 

The Panel finds Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been established.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

 

Respondent’s <enterprisetentacar.com> 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 utilize Complainant’s services may purchase the same services from competitors as a result of Respondent’s use of the disputed <enterprisetentacar.com> domain name.  The Panel finds that Respondent’s use of the <enterprisetentacar.com> 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 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 above mentioned hyperlinks.  Internet users searching for Complainant may find Respondent’s website instead because of Respondent’s use of a confusingly similar disputed domain name.  Internet users may then become confused as to Complainant’s sponsorship of, and affiliation with, the disputed domain name’s resolving website and featured hyperlinks.  Presumably Respondent benefits from this confusion through the receipt of click-through fees.  The Panel finds that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name constitutes bad faith registration and use under 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 Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) has been established. 

 

DECISION

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

 

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

 

The Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.), Panelist

Dated:  May 23, 2011

 

 

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page