Enterprise Holdings, Inc. v Imtiaz Pirzada / UCarEnterprise
Claim Number: FA1408001573457
Complainant is Enterprise Holdings, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by David R. Haarz of Harness, Dickey & Pierce, PLC., Virginia, USA. Respondent is Imtiaz Pirzada / UCarEnterprise (“Respondent”), Texas, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <ucarenterprise.com>, registered with GODADDY.COM, LLC.
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.
Sandra J. Franklin as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on August 5, 2014; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on August 5, 2014.
On August 5, 2014, GODADDY.COM, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <ucarenterprise.com> 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 ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).
On August 6, 2014, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 26, 2014 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@ucarenterprise.com. Also on August 6, 2014, 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 2, 2014, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Sandra J. Franklin 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
1. Respondent’s <ucarenterprise.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ENTERPRISE mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <ucarenterprise.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and uses the <ucarenterprise.com> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant holds a registration for its ENTERPRISE mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (Registration Number 1,343,167, registered June 18, 1985), used in connection with its car rental business.
Respondent registered the <ucarenterprise.com> domain name on May 17, 2014, and uses it to operate a website that competes with Complainant. At times the disputed domain name resolves to an inactive website or error message.
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 and 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.”).
The Panel finds that Complainant’s USPTO registration is sufficient evidence of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) rights in the ENTERPRISE mark. See W.W. Grainger, Inc. v. Above.com Domain Privacy, FA 1334458 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 24, 2010) (stating that “the Panel finds that USPTO registration is sufficient to establish these [Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)] rights even when Respondent lives or operates in a different country.”).
Respondent’s <ucarenterprise.com> domain name adds the generic top-level domain ("gTLD") “.com,” the descriptive term “car,” and the letter “u.” These changes do not distinguish the disputed domain name from Complainant’s mark. See Cargill, Incorporated v. Domain Privacy Grp., FA 1501652 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jul. 5, 2013) (determining that the disputed domain name, which contains the complainant’s mark, along with two generic terms and a generic top-level domain, is the equivalent of the mark itself for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)). The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ENTERPRISE mark.
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Once Complainant makes a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 18, 2006) (holding that the complainant must first make a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under UDRP ¶ 4(a)(ii) before the burden shifts to the respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in a domain name); see also AOL LLC v. Gerberg, FA 780200 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 25, 2006) (“Complainant must first make a prima facie showing that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interest in the subject domain names, which burden is light. If Complainant satisfies its burden, then the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain names.”).
Complainant claims that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. The WHOIS information lists “Imtiaz Pirzada / UCarEnterprise” as the registrant of record for the disputed domain name. The Panel finds that there is no basis for finding that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. See Yoga Works, Inc. v. Arpita, FA 155461 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 17, 2003) (finding that the respondent was not “commonly known by” the <shantiyogaworks.com> domain name despite listing its name as “Shanti Yoga Works” in its WHOIS contact information because there was “no affirmative evidence before the Panel that the respondent was ever ‘commonly known by’ the disputed domain name prior to its registration of the disputed domain name”).
Complainant claims Respondent attempts to operate a competing business through the <ucarenterprise.com> domain name’s website. The Panel notes that the domain name resolved to a website purporting to offer booking services for car rentals. The Panel finds that the use of a confusingly similar domain name to offer directly competing products is not a Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) bona fide offering, or Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) legitimate noncommercial or fair use, in store for this domain name. See Alcon, Inc. v. ARanked, FA 1306493 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 18, 2010) (“The Panel finds that capitalizing on the well-known marks of Complainant by attracting internet users to its disputed domain names where Respondent sells competing products of Complainant is not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”).
Complainant demonstrates that at times the <ucarenterprise.com> domain name resolves to an inactive website or error message. The Panel finds that this use of the domain name comports also does not constitute a Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) bona fide offering, or Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See George Weston Bakeries Inc. v. McBroom, FA 933276 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 25, 2007) (finding that the respondent had no rights or legitimate interests in a domain name under either Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) where it failed to make any active use of the domain name).
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Complainant claims that by promoting a competing endeavor, Respondent created a bad faith disruption of Complainant’s business. The Panel agrees and finds bad faith disruption under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See DatingDirect.com Ltd. v. Aston, FA 593977 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 28, 2005) (“Respondent is appropriating Complainant’s mark to divert Complainant’s customers to Respondent’s competing business. The Panel finds this diversion is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).”).
Complainant also claims that Respondent profits from the likelihood that Internet users will be confused as to Complainant’s association with the <ucarenterprise.com> domain name. The Panel agrees and finds Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) bad faith. See Scholastic Inc. v. Applied Software Solutions, Inc., D2000-1629 (WIPO Mar. 15, 2001) (finding bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) because the respondent initially used the disputed domain name to sell educational services that targeted the complainant’s market).
Complainant argues that Respondent was well aware of Complainant’s rights when registering this <ucarenterprise.com> domain name because the ENTERPRISE mark is used in the domain name and the services offered are competing car rental services. The Panel agrees and finds that Respondent actually knew of Complainant’s rights in the mark, further bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Orbitz Worldwide, LLC v. Domain Librarian, FA 1535826 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 6, 2014) (“The Panel notes that although the UDRP does not recognize “constructive notice” as sufficient grounds for finding Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) bad faith, the Panel here finds actual knowledge through the name used for the domain and the use made of it.”).
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <ucarenterprise.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Sandra J. Franklin, Panelist
Dated: September 9, 2014
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page