Enterprise Holdings, Inc. v. LAKSH INTERNET SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED
Claim Number: FA1108001404555
Complainant is Enterprise Holdings, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Renee Reuter of Enterprise Holdings, Inc., Missouri, USA. Respondent is LAKSH INTERNET SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED (“Respondent”), India.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <enterprissecarrental.com>, registered with TIRUPATI DOMAINS AND HOSTING PRIVATE LIMITED.
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 August 24, 2011; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on August 24, 2011.
On August 25, 2011, TIRUPATI DOMAINS AND HOSTING PRIVATE LIMITED confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <enterprissecarrental.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 August 30, 2011, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of September 19, 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@enterprissecarrental.com. Also on August 30, 2011, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the e-mail 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 September 21, 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 <enterprissecarrental.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ENTERPRISE mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <enterprissecarrental.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <enterprissecarrental.com> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, Enterprise Holdings, Inc., licenses its ENTERPRISE mark to its licensee, Enterprise Rent-A-Car. Complainant’s licensee uses the ENTERPRISE mark to offer rental car services in the United States, Canada, Ireland, Germany, and the United Kingdom. Complainant owns multiple trademark registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) for its ENTERPRISE mark (e.g., Reg. No. 1,343,167 registered June 18, 1985).
Respondent, LAKSH INTERNET SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED, registered the <enterprissecarrental.com> domain name on April 18, 2008. The disputed domain name resolves to a website that provides hyperlinks to Complainant’s licensee’s website and the websites of competing car rental companies.
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.
As Complainant owns trademark registrations with the USPTO for its ENTERPRISE mark (e.g., Reg. No. 1,343,167 registered June 18, 1985), the Panel concludes that Complainant has established rights in its ENTERPRISE mark under 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 Intel Corp. v. Macare, FA 660685 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 26, 2006) (finding that the complainant had established rights in the PENTIUM, CENTRINO and INTEL INSIDE marks by registering the marks with the USPTO); see also 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).
The Panel finds that the <enterprissecarrental.com> domain name contains Complainant’s ENTERPRISE mark and only also contains an extra letter “s,” the descriptive terms “car” and “rental,” and the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com,” which leads the Panel to hold that Respondent’s <enterprissecarrental.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ENTERPRISE mark pursuant to 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); see also Gillette Co. v. RFK Assocs., FA 492867 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 28, 2005) (finding that the additions of the term “batteries,” which described the complainant’s products, and the generic top-level domain “.com” were insufficient to distinguish the respondent’s <duracellbatteries.com> from the complainant’s DURACELL mark); 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) is satisfied.
Complainant has alleged that Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <enterprissecarrental.com> domain name. Once Complainant makes a prima facie case in support of its allegations, the burden shifts to Respondent to prove that it does have rights or legitimate interests pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Due to Respondent’s failure to respond to the Complaint, the Panel may assume that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. 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 Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, D2000-0624 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000) (holding that, where the complainant has asserted that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the domain name, it is incumbent on the respondent to come forward with concrete evidence rebutting this assertion because this information is “uniquely within the knowledge and control of the respondent”). The Panel instead elects to analyze the evidence under Policy ¶ 4(c) to determine if Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
The Panel determines that Respondent is not commonly known by the <enterprissecarrental.com> domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) because Complainant has not licensed, or otherwise permitted, Respondent to use its ENTERPRISE mark, the WHOIS information identifies the registrant of the disputed domain name as “LAKSH INTERNET SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,” which is not similar to the disputed domain name, and Respondent has failed to present any evidence to contradict such a finding. See 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); 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).
Based on Complainant’s assertions and the screen shots of the website resolving from the disputed domain name, the Panel concludes that Respondent is using the disputed domain name to offer hyperlinks to the websites of Complainant’s licensee and competing rental car services, which the Panel finds is not a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the <enterprissecarrental.com> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Meyerson v. Speedy Web, FA 960409 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 25, 2007) (finding that where a respondent has failed to offer any goods or services on its website other than links to a variety of third-party websites, it was not using a 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 pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)); see also Skyhawke Techns., LLC v. Tidewinds Group, Inc., FA 949608 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 18, 2007) (“Respondent is using the <skycaddy.com> domain name to display a list of hyperlinks, some of which advertise Complainant and its competitors’ products. The Panel finds that this use of the disputed domain name 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).”).
The Panel finds Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) is satisfied.
As noted above, the Panel determines that Respondent registered and uses the <enterprissecarrental.com> domain name for the purpose of offering hyperlinks to the competitors of Complainant’s licensee, which, the Panel holds, disrupts Complainant’s rental car business and 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 David Hall Rare Coins v. Tex. Int’l Prop. Assocs., FA 915206 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 9, 2007) (finding that the respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) because respondent used the disputed domain name to advertise goods and services of complainant’s competitors, thereby disrupting the complainant’s business).
The Panel further finds that Respondent registered and uses the <enterprissecarrental.com> domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) because, by providing competing hyperlinks at a confusingly similar domain name, Respondent is attempting to commercially gain by creating confusion as to Complainant’s affiliation with the disputed domain name. See BPI Comm’cns, Inc. v. Boogie TV LLC, FA 105755 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 30, 2002) (“Complainants are in the music and entertainment business. The links associated with <billboard.tv> and <boogie.tv> appear to be in competition for the same Internet users, which Complainants are trying to attract with the <billboard.com> web site. There is clearly a likelihood of confusion between <billboard.tv> and BILLBOARD as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the web site or of a product or service on the web site.”); see also Univ. of Houston Sys. v. Salvia Corp., FA 637920 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 21, 2006) (“Respondent is using the disputed domain name to operate a website which features links to competing and non-competing commercial websites from which Respondent presumably receives referral fees. Such use for Respondent’s own commercial gain is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).”).
The Panel finds Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) is 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 <enterprissecarrental.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Tyrus R. Atkinson, Jr., Panelist
Dated: October 4, 2011
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page