national arbitration forum

 

DECISION

 

Enterprise Holdings, Inc. v. Cyber Domain Services Pvt. Ltd.

Claim Number: FA1110001410293

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Enterprise Holdings, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Renee Reuter of Enterprise Holdings, Inc., Missouri, USA.  Respondent is Cyber Domain Services Pvt. Ltd. (“Respondent”), India.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <entrepricerentacar.com>, registered with Tirupati Domains & Hosting Pvt. Ltd.

 

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 October 5, 2011; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on October 5, 2011.

 

On October 7, 2011, Tirupati Domains & Hosting Pvt. Ltd. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <entrepricerentacar.com> domain name is registered with Tirupati Domains & Hosting Pvt. Ltd. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name.  Tirupati Domains & Hosting Pvt. Ltd.

 has verified that Respondent is bound by the Tirupati Domains & Hosting Pvt. Ltd. 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 10, 2011, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of October 31, 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@entrepricerentacar.com.  Also on October 10, 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 November 7, 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 <entrepricerentacar.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ENTERPRISE RENT-A-CAR mark.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

FINDINGS

Complainant, Enterprise Holdings, Inc., owns the ENTERPRISE RENT-A-CAR mark and licenses Enterprise Rent-A-Car to use its mark in connection with car rental services.  Complainant owns a trademark registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) for its ENTERPRISE RENT-A-CAR mark (Reg. No. 2,371,192 registered July 25, 2000).

 

Respondent, Cyber Domain Services Pvt. Ltd., registered the <entrepricerentacar.com> domain name on May 16, 2008.  The disputed domain name resolves to a website hosting hyperlinks that resolve to the websites of Complainant’s competitors.

 

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

 

While Respondent resides or operates in India and not the United States, the Panel still finds that Complainant’s trademark registration with the USPTO (Reg. No. 2,371,192 registered July 25, 2000) for its ENTERPRISE mark is sufficient to establish rights under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).  See Bloomberg L.P. v. Johnston, FA 760084 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 25, 2006) (finding that the complainant had established rights in the BLOOMBERG mark through registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office); see also Expedia, Inc. v. Emmerson, FA 873346 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 9, 2007) (“Complainant’s trademark registrations with the USPTO adequately demonstrate its rights in the [EXPEDIA] mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”); see also Williams-Sonoma, Inc. v. Fees, FA 937704 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 25, 2007) (finding that it is irrelevant whether the complainant has registered its trademark in the country of the respondent’s residence).

 

As Respondent’s <entrepricerentacar.com> domain name simply alters Complainant’s mark by removing the space and hyphens, replacing the letter “s” with the letter “c,” and adding the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com,” the Panel concludes that Respondent’s <entrepricerentacar.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ENTERPRISE RENT-A-CAR mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).  See Am. Int’l Group, Inc. v. Domain Admin. Ltd., FA 1106369 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 31, 2007) (finding that “spaces are impermissible and a generic top-level domain, such as ‘.com,’ ‘.net,’ ‘.biz,’ or ‘.org,’ is required in domain names.  Therefore, the panel finds that the disputed domain name [<americangenerallifeinsurance.com>] is confusingly similar to the complainant’s [AMERICAN GENERAL] mark.”); see also Nat’l Cable Satellite Corp. v. Black Sun Surf Co., FA 94738 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 19, 2000) (holding that the domain name <cspan.net>, which omitted the hyphen from the trademark spelling, C-SPAN, is confusingly similar to the complainant's mark); see also 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”). 

 

The Panel holds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) is satisfied.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

 

Complainant has alleged that Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <entrepricerentacar.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).  The Panel finds Complainant has made a sufficient prima facie case.  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.  However, the Panel will examine the record to determine whether Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c).  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 Law Soc’y of Hong Kong v. Domain Strategy, Inc., HK-0200015 (ADNDRC Feb. 12, 2003) (“A respondent is not obligated to participate in a domain name dispute . . . but the failure to participate leaves a respondent vulnerable to the inferences that flow naturally from the assertions of the complainant and the tribunal will accept as established assertions by the complainant that are not unreasonable.”).

 

The Panel determines that Respondent is not commonly known by the <entrepricerentacar.com> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) because the WHOIS information identifies the registrant of the disputed domain as “Cyber Domain Services Pvt. Ltd.,” Complainant has not licensed or permitted Respondent to use its ENTERPRISE RENT-A-CAR mark in a domain name, and Respondent has not refuted any of these allegations or provided evidence that it was commonly known by the domain name.  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 St. Lawrence Univ. v. Nextnet Tech, FA 881234 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 21, 2007) (concluding a respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name where there was no evidence in the record indicating that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain name).

 

As Respondent’s <entrepricerentacar.com> domain name resolves to a website that hosts competing hyperlinks, such as “Budget Car Rental,” “Cheap Car,” and “Car Rental,” the Panel concludes that Respondent is not making a Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) bona fide offering of goods or services or a Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the <entrepricerentacar.com> domain name.  See 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).”); 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 holds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

 

The Panel finds that Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name, to host competing hyperlinks, disrupts Complainant’s business, which constitutes bad faith registration and use pursuant to 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).

 

The Panel infers that Respondent receives click-through fees from the aforementioned competing hyperlinks.   The Panel finds that Respondent is attempting to commercially benefit by creating confusion as to Complainant’s affiliation with the website by registering and using the confusingly similar <entrepricerentacar.com> domain name, which is evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).  See Associated Newspapers Ltd. v. Domain Manager, FA 201976 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 19, 2003) (“Respondent's prior use of the <mailonsunday.com> domain name is evidence of bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) because the domain name provided links to Complainant's competitors and Respondent presumably commercially benefited from the misleading domain name by receiving ‘click-through-fees.’”); see also Red Hat, Inc. v. Haecke, FA 726010 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 24, 2006) (finding that the respondent engaged in bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) by using the disputed domain names to operate a commercial search engine with links to the products of the complainant and to complainant’s competitors, as well as by diverting Internet users to several other domain names).

 

The Panel holds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) has been satisfied.

 

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 <entrepricerentacar.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

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

Dated:  November 21, 2011

 

 

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page