national arbitration forum

 

DECISION

 

Enterprise Holdings, Inc. v. Marina Castamanova

Claim Number: FA1402001542902

PARTIES

Complainant is Enterprise Holdings, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by David R. Haarz of Harness, Dickey & Pierce, PLC, Virginia, USA.  Respondent is Marina Castamanova (“Respondent”), Florida, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <enterprisecarrentalcoupon.us>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.

 

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.

 

Bruce E. Meyerson as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on February 10, 2014; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy on February 11, 2014.

 

On February 10, 2014, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <enterprisecarrentalcoupon.us> domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name.  GoDaddy.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, LLC registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with the U.S. Department of Commerce’s usTLD Disputed Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).

 

On February 12, 2014, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline of March 4, 2014 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, was transmitted to Respondent in compliance with Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for usTLD Dispute Resolution Policy.

 

Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.

 

On March 7, 2014, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Bruce E. Meyerson 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) Rules for the U.S. Department of Commerce’s usTLD Dispute Resolution Policy "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 usTLD Policy, usTLD 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

1. Complainant, Enterprise Holdings, Inc., is the owner of the ENTERPRISE and ENTERPRISE RENT-A-CAR marks. Complainant is very well-known in the vehicle rental business. Complainant is an internationally recognized brand serving the daily rental needs of customers throughout the United States, Canada, Ireland, Germany, and the United Kingdom.
2. Complainant is the owner of a trademark registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) for the ENTERPRISE mark (Reg. No. 1,343,167, registered June 18, 1985).
3. The <enterprisecarrentalcoupon.us> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s registered ENTERPRISE marks.
4. There is nothing to indicate that Respondent is the owner or beneficiary of a trademark or service mark that is identical to the domain name.
5. Respondent is not commonly known by the <enterprisecarrentalcoupon.us> domain name.
6. The website at the <enterprisecarrentalcoupon.us> domain name resolves to a webpage claiming to offer links to “Enterprise Car Rental Coupons” and inviting the user to click on the “Active Deal” buttons below the heading “Enterprise Car Rental Coupons.”
7. The website at <coupongrabber.com> displays, without Complainant’s permission, two of Complainant’s “Enterprise Rent-A-Car” logos in color.
8. Respondent is deliberately using a domain name that is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ENTERPRISE marks to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s ENTERPRISE marks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of its website and the services offered at such websites.
9. Respondent was aware of Complainant and its ENTERPRISE marks when registering and using the <enterprisecarrentalcoupon.us> domain name.

 

B. Respondent

1.    Respondent registered the <enterprisecarrentalcoupon.us> domain name on December 29, 2013.

2.    Although Respondent did not submit a Response, Respondent stated in an e-mail that “I have no interest in maintaining the domain name enterprisecarrentalcoupon.us . I am happy to immediately relinquish ownership of the domain Enterprise Holdings, Inc.”

 

FINDINGS

Respondent has consented to the transfer of the <enterprisecarrentalcoupon.us> domain name.

 

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."

 

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 or is being used in bad faith.

 

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.”).

 

Given the similarity between the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (“UDRP”) and the usTLD Policy, the Panel will draw upon UDRP precedent as applicable in rendering its decision.

 

Preliminary Issue: Consent to Transfer

 

Respondent states in an e-mail that “I have no interest in maintaining the domain name enterprisecarrentalcoupon.us . I am happy to immediately relinquish ownership of the domain Enterprise Holdings, Inc.” As a result, the Panel finds that in a circumstance where Respondent has not contested the transfer of the disputed domain name but instead agrees to transfer the domain name in question to Complainant, the Panel may forego the traditional UDRP/usTLD analysis and order an immediate transfer of the <enterprisecarrentalcoupon.us> domain name.  See Boehringer Ingelheim Int’l GmbH v. Modern Ltd. – Cayman Web Dev., FA 133625 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 9, 2003) (transferring the domain name registration where the respondent stipulated to the transfer); see also Malev Hungarian Airlines, Ltd. v. Vertical Axis Inc., FA 212653 (Nat Arb. Forum Jan. 13, 2004) (“In this case, the parties have both asked for the domain name to be transferred to the Complainant . . . Since the requests of the parties in this case are identical, the Panel has no scope to do anything other than to recognize the common request, and it has no mandate to make findings of fact or of compliance (or not) with the Policy.”).

 

DECISION

The Respondent having consented to the transfer of the <enterprisecarrentalcoupon.us> domain name, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.

 

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

 

 

Bruce E. Meyerson, Panelist

Dated:  March 10, 2014