Enterprise Rent-A-Car Company v. Steven Garcia
Claim Number: FA0703000934716
Complainant is Enterprise Rent-A-Car Company (“Complainant”), represented by Vicki
L. Little, of Schultz & Little, L.L.P.,
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN
NAME
The domain name at issue is <enterpriserentacarinformation.com>, registered with Direct Information Pvt Ltd d/b/a Publicdomainregistry.com.
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.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on March 9, 2007; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on March 12, 2007.
On
On March 15, 2007, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of April 4, 2007 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@enterpriserentacarinformation.com by e-mail.
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
<enterpriserentacarinformation.com>
domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <enterpriserentacarinformation.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <enterpriserentacarinformation.com> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, Enterprise Rent-A-Car Company, provides vehicle rental, leasing, and sales services to consumers in countries around the world. Complainant maintains its primary website at the <enterprise.com> and <enterpriserentacar.com> domain names.
Complainant holds numerous trademark registrations for the ENTERPRISE mark with trademark offices around the world, including in the United States with the Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (Reg. No. 1,343,167 issued June 18, 1985), in the United Kingdom with the Patent Office (“UKPO”) (Reg. No. 1,541,740 issued April 15, 1994), and in the European Union with the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (“OHIM”) (Reg. No. 36,384 issued December 1, 1998).
Respondent’s <enterpriserentacarinformation.com>
domain name, which it registered on
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.
Through registration of the
Respondent’s <enterpriserentacarinformation.com>
domain name contains Complainant’s registered ENTERPRISE mark with the appended
terms and letters “rent,” “a,” “car,” and “information,” all of which relate to
Complainant’s business of providing rental car services. In Parfums
Christian Dior v. 1 Netpower, Inc., D2000-0022 (WIPO Mar. 3, 2000), the
panel held that the respondent’s four domain names were confusingly similar to
the complainant’s DIOR mark because each merely added a descriptive word such
as “fashion” or “cosmetics,” areas in which the complainant was highly
successful. Likewise,
in Reed Elsevier Inc. v. Christodoulou, FA 97321 (Nat. Arb. Forum
June 26, 2001), the panel found that the <legallexis.com> and
<legallexus.com> domain names were confusingly similar to Complainant’s
LEXIS mark because the term “legal” described the type of services Complainant
offered under the LEXIS mark. Thus, the
Panel finds that Respondent has not sufficiently distinguished its domain name
from Complainant’s registered mark by merely adding terms relating to Complainant’s
business. Accordingly, the <enterpriserentacarinformation.com> domain
name is confusingly similar to the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
The Panel concludes that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant contends that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the <enterpriserentacarinformation.com> domain name. Complainant has the initial burden of proof in establishing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain name. Once Complainant makes a prima facie case in support of its allegations, the burden then shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entertainment 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 Policy ¶ 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.”).
Respondent’s failure to answer the Complaint raises a
presumption that Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. See Geocities v. Geocities.com, D2000-0326 (WIPO June 19, 2000)
(finding that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the
domain name because the respondent never submitted a response or provided the
panel with evidence to suggest otherwise).
However,
the Panel will now examine the record to determine if Respondent has rights or
legitimate interests under Policy ¶ 4(c).
Respondent has registered the <enterpriserentacarinformation.com> domain name as “Steven Garcia,” and there is no other evidence in the record suggesting that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. Consequently, Respondent has not established rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Coppertown Drive-Thru Sys., LLC v. Snowden, FA 715089 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 17, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <coppertown.com> domain name where there was no evidence in the record, including the WHOIS information, suggesting that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain name).
Respondent’s <enterpriserentacarinformation.com>
domain name, which is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ENTERPRISE mark,
redirects Internet users to a website displaying information on rental cars, as
well as providing links to rental car companies that compete with
Complainant. The Panel presumes that
Respondent profits from click-through fees it earns by redirecting Internet
users to competing commercial websites.
The Panel does not find such use to constitute 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). See Wal-Mart Stores,
Inc. v. Power of Choice Holding Co.,
FA 621292 (Nat. Arb.
Forum Feb. 16, 2006) (finding that the respondent’s use of domain names
confusingly similar to the complainant’s WAL-MART mark to divert Internet users
seeking the complainant’s goods and services to websites competing with the
complainant did 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)).
The Panel concludes that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Respondent is using the confusingly similar <enterpriserentacarinformation.com>
domain name to redirect Internet users to websites competing with Complainant. As a result, the Panel finds that Respondent
has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith pursuant to
Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).
See 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); see also St. Lawrence Univ. v. Nextnet Tech, FA 881234 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 21, 2007) (“This Panel concludes
that by redirecting Internet users seeking information on Complainant’s
educational institution to competing websites, Respondent has engaged in bad
faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶
4(b)(iii).”).
The Panel concludes 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 <enterpriserentacarinformation.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Bruce E. Meyerson, Panelist
Dated: April 24, 2007
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
National
Arbitration Forum