Europcar
International v. EU-Neufahrzeugvermittlung
Claim
Number: FA0301000142134
PARTIES
Complainant is
Europcar International, Saint Quentin en Yvelines, FRANCE (“Complainant”)
represented by Corinne Allard, of Markplus International. Respondent
is Ruediger Hoins EU-Neufahrzeugvermittlung, Buchholz, GERMANY
(“Respondent”).
REGISTRAR AND
DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The
domain name at issue is <europe-cars.org>, registered with Schlund+partner
Ag.
On
February 19, 2003, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute
decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed James P. Buchele as
Panelist.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.
PROCEDURAL
HISTORY
Complainant
submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the "Forum")
electronically on January 17, 2003; the Forum received a hard copy of the
Complaint on January 20, 2003.
On
January 22, 2003, Schlund+partner Ag confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the
domain name <europe-cars.org> is registered with Schlund+partner
Ag and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Schlund+partner
Ag has verified that Respondent is bound by the Schlund+partner Ag registration
agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain-name disputes brought by
third parties in accordance with ICANN's Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution
Policy (the "Policy").
On
January 23, 2003, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of
Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting
a deadline of February 12, 2003 by which Respondent could file a Response to
the Complaint, was transmitted to Respondent via e-mail, post and fax, to all
entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical,
administrative and billing contacts, and to postmaster@europe-cars.org by
e-mail.
Having
received no Response from Respondent, using the same contact details and
methods as were used for the Commencement Notification, the Forum transmitted
to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
Having
reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the
"Panel") finds that the 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."
Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents
submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, the 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 <europe-cars.org>
domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s EUROPCAR mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or
legitimate interests in the <europe-cars.org> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <europe-cars.org>
domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in
this proceeding.
Complainant
holds numerous marks for EUROPCAR registered nationally and internationally.
Complainant uses the marks in relation to its international car rental
business. Complainant has registered a number of websites that direct Internet
users to its main website, <europcar.com>.
Respondent registered
the <europe-cars.org> domain name on March 13, 2001. Respondent is
using the disputed domain name to redirect Internet traffic to
<www.car4you.de>, a website that features the selling and leasing of
automobiles.
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.
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 has
established rights in the EUROPCAR mark through international registration and
continuous use of the mark since 1949.
Respondent’s <europe-cars.org>
domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark because the disputed
domain name incorporates Complainant’s entire mark and merely adds an “e,” a
hyphen and an “s.” The addition of the “e” and the “s” do not prevent
Complainant’s mark from remaining the dominant feature of the disputed domain
name. See Victoria’s Secret v.
Zuccarini, FA 95762 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 18, 2000) (finding that, by
misspelling words and adding letters to words, a Respondent does not create a
distinct mark but nevertheless renders the domain name confusingly similar to
Complainant’s marks); see also
Universal City Studios, Inc. v. HarperStephens, D2000-0716 (WIPO Sept. 5,
2000) (finding that deleting the letter “s” from the Complainant’s UNIVERSAL
STUDIOS STORE mark did not change the overall impression of the mark and thus
made the disputed domain name confusingly similar to it). Similarly, the
addition of the hyphen is not sufficient to differentiate the <europe-cars.org>
domain name from Complainant’s EUROPCAR mark. See Teleplace, Inc. v. De Oliveira, FA 95835 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 4,
2000) (finding that the domain names <teleplace.com>,
<tele-place.com>, and <theteleplace.com> are confusingly similar to
Complainant’s TELEPLACE trademark); see also InfoSpace.com v. Tenenbaum Ofer, D2000-0075 (WIPO Apr. 27, 2000)
(finding that “[t]he domain name ‘info-space.com’ is identical to Complainant’s
INFOSPACE trademark. The addition of a hyphen and .com are not distinguishing
features”).
The Panel finds
that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
Respondent has
failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. Thus, the Panel is permitted to
accept all reasonable allegations and inferences in the Complaint as true. See
Vertical Solutions Mgmt., Inc. v. webnet-marketing, inc., FA 95095 (Nat.
Arb. Forum July 31, 2000) (holding that Respondent’s failure to respond allows
all reasonable inferences of fact in the allegations of Complainant to be
deemed true); see also Desotec
N.V. v. Jacobi Carbons AB, D2000-1398 (WIPO Dec. 21, 2000) (finding that
failing to respond allows a presumption that Complainant’s allegations are true
unless clearly contradicted by the evidence).
Moreover,
Respondent has failed to invoke any circumstances that could demonstrate rights
or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. When Complainant asserts a
prima facie case against Respondent, the burden of proof shifts to
Respondent to show that it has rights or legitimate interests pursuant to
Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). See Geocities
v. Geociites.com, D2000-0326 (WIPO June 19, 2000) (finding that Respondent has
no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name because the Respondent
never submitted a response nor provided the Panel with evidence to suggest
otherwise); see also Ziegenfelder
Co. v. VMH Enter., Inc., D2000-0039 (WIPO Mar. 14, 2000) (drawing two
inferences based on the Respondent’s failure to respond: (1) the Respondent
does not deny the facts asserted by the Complainant, and (2) the Respondent
does not deny conclusions which the Complainant asserts can be drawn from the
facts).
Respondent is using
the <europe-cars.org> domain name primarily to divert Internet
users to <www.car4you.com>. This type of use is not a use in connection
with a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i),
nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See N. Coast Med., Inc. v. Allegro Med., FA
95541 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 2, 2000) (finding no bona fide use where Respondent
used the domain name to divert Internet users to its competing website); see
also AltaVista v. Krotov,
D2000-1091 (WIPO Oct. 25, 2000) (finding that use of the domain name to direct
users to other, unconnected websites does not constitute a legitimate interest
in the domain name).
Respondent has
submitted no evidence to establish that it is commonly known as EUROPE CARS or <europe-cars.org>.
Therefore, Respondent has failed to meet its burden by establishing that it has
rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶
4(c)(ii). See Gallup Inc. v. Amish
Country Store, FA 96209 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 23, 2001) (finding that
Respondent does not have rights in a domain name when Respondent is not known
by the mark); see also Great S. Wood Pres., Inc. v. TFA Assocs., FA 95169 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 5, 2000)
(finding that Respondent was not commonly known by the domain name
<greatsouthernwood.com> where Respondent linked the domain name to
<bestoftheweb.com>).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
Respondent is
using the <europe-cars.org> domain name to divert Internet users
to <www.car4you.com>, a commercial website. The Panel may infer that
Respondent is profiting from the Internet traffic created by this diversion.
Thus, Respondent is using a confusingly similar domain name to confuse Internet
users for Respondent’s commercial benefit. This type of use is evidence of bad
faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Kmart v. Kahn,
FA 127708 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 22, 2002) (finding that if Respondent profits
from its diversionary use of Complainant's mark when the domain name resolves
to commercial websites and Respondent fails to contest the Complaint, it may be
concluded that Respondent is using the domain name in bad faith pursuant to
Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)); see also G.D. Searle & Co. v. Celebrex Drugstore,
FA 123933 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 21, 2002) (finding that Respondent registered
and used the domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) because
Respondent was using the confusingly similar domain name to attract Internet
users to its commercial website).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) has been satisfied.
Having
established all three elements required under ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes
that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it
is Ordered that the <europe-cars.org> domain name be TRANSFERRED
from Respondent to Complainant.
James P. Buchele, Panelist
Dated:
February 24, 2003
Click Here to return
to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home
Page