Enterprise Rent-A-Car Company v. Rubalier
Claim Number: FA0610000828023
Complainant is Enterprise-Rent-A-Car Company (“Complainant”), represented by Vicki
L. Little, of Schultz & Little, L.L.P.,
REGISTRAR
The domain name at issue is <enterprise-rental-car.info>, registered with Webagentur.at.
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.
Honorable Paul A. Dorf (Ret.) as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to
the National Arbitration Forum electronically on
On
On
Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On
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." 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 <enterprise-rental-car.info> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ENTERPRISE mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <enterprise-rental-car.info> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <enterprise-rental-car.info> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, Enterprise Rent-A-Car Company, is a nationally
recognized leader in the vehicle rental and leasing business. In connection with the provision of these
services, Complainant has registered a number of trade and service marks with
the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) including the
Respondent registered the <enterprise-rental-car.info>
domain name
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
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 asserts rights in the
Complainant contends that Respondent’s <enterprise-rental-car.info> domain
name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark. Respondent’s disputed domain name features
Complainant’s entire
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)
has been satisfied.
Complainant contends that Respondent lacks rights or
legitimate interests in the <enterprise-rental-car.info>
domain name. In instances where
Complainant has made a prima facie case under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), the burden shifts to Respondent to set forth concrete
evidence that it does possess rights or legitimate interests in the disputed
domain name. See Compagnie Generale
des Matieres Nucleaires v. Greenpeace Int’l, D2001-0376 (WIPO
Complainant contends that Respondent is using the disputed
domain name to resolve to a website that features links to various competing
commercial websites from which Respondent presumably receives referral
fees. The Panel finds that Respondent’s
use is neither 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 Computer Doctor
Franchise Sys., Inc. v. Computer Doctor, FA 95396 (Nat. Arb. Forum
Additionally, Complainant contends that Respondent is
neither commonly known by the <enterprise-rental-car.info> domain name nor authorized to register domain names
featuring Complainant’s ENTERPRISE mark in any way. In the absence of evidence suggesting
otherwise, the Panel finds that Respondent has not established rights or
legitimate interests in accordance with Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Compagnie de Saint Gobain v. Com-Union Corp., D2000-0020 (WIPO
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)
has been satisfied.
Complainant contends that Respondent is using the <enterprise-rental-car.info> domain name to operate a website that provides
Internet users with links to various competing vehicle rental websites. The Panel finds that Respondent’s use
constitutes a disruption of Complainant’t business and evinces bad faith
pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See Puckett, Individually v. Miller,
D2000-0297 (WIPO
Furthermore, Respondent’s use will likely cause confusion as
to Complainant’s sponsorship of and affiliation with the resulting
websites. The Panel finds that such use
of a domain name for Respondent’s own commercial gain is additional evidence of
Respondent’s bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Perot Sys. Corp. v.
Perot.net, FA 95312 (Nat. Arb.
Forum
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)
has been 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 <enterprise-rental-car.info> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Honorable Paul A. Dorf (Ret.), Panelist
Dated:
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
National
Arbitration Forum