Enterprise Holdings, Inc. v. Stephanie Wynter
Claim Number: FA1804001780232
Complainant is Enterprise Holdings, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by David R. Haarz of Harness, Dickey & Pierce, PLC., Virginia, USA. Respondent is Stephanie Wynter ("Respondent"), India.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <enterprisecarsales.biz>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.
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.
David E. Sorkin as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on April 3, 2018; the Forum received payment on April 3, 2018.
On April 4, 2018, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by email to the Forum that the <enterprisecarsales.biz> 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 April 4, 2018, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of April 24, 2018 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via email to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@enterprisecarsales.biz. Also on April 4, 2018, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the email 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 Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On April 30, 2018, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed David E. Sorkin as Panelist.
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" 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 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
Complainant owns the ENTERPRISE CAR SALES mark, which it licenses to the Enterprise Car Sales operating companies. The mark is the subject of various registrations with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, each of which contains the words "enterprise car sales" as its dominant component, and each of which disclaims any exclusive right to use "car sales" apart from the mark. Complainant states that its predecessor in interest began using the ENTERPRISE CAR SALES mark in connection with car sales in 1995.
Respondent registered the disputed domain name <enterprisecarsales.biz> in February 2018. The domain name resolves to a web page entitled "Windows Server" / "Internet Information Services." Complainant states that it has not licensed, authorized, or permitted Respondent to use its ENTERPRISE CAR SALES mark, and that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name.
Complainant contends on the above grounds that the disputed domain name <enterprisecarsales.biz> is confusingly similar to its ENTERPRISE CAR SALES mark; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
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(f), 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 (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 disputed domain name <enterprisecarsales.biz> corresponds to Complainant's registered ENTERPRISE CAR SALES trademark, with the spaces omitted and the ".biz" top-level domain appended thereto. These changes do not distinguish the domain name from Complainant's mark for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. See, e.g., Enterprise Holdings, Inc. v. Neville Rankin / CharmSPY, FA 1516888 (Forum Oct. 10, 2013) (finding <enterprisecarshare.biz> identical to ENTERPRISE CARSHARE); Enterprise Rent-A-Car Co. v. Terri Aldridge, FA 190507 (Forum Oct. 13, 2003) (finding <enterprisecarsales.net> identical to ENTERPRISE CAR SALES). The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights.
Under the Policy, Complainant must first make a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and then the burden shifts to Respondent to come forward with concrete evidence of such rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm't Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006).
The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant's registered mark without authorization, and there is no indication that Respondent has made any active use of the domain name. See, e.g., Otter Products, LLC v. Robot Flower, FA 1771989 (Forum Mar. 13, 2018) (finding lack of rights or legitimate interests where domain name was used only to display "coming soon" web page); State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Yabar Gulia, FA 1752382 (Forum Nov. 10, 2017) (finding lack of rights or legitimate interests where domain name resolved to web server error message).
Complainant has made a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and Respondent has failed to come forward with any evidence of such rights or interests. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has sustained its burden of proving that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.
Finally, Complainant must show that the disputed domain name was registered and has been used in bad faith. Under paragraph 4(b)(i) of the Policy, bad faith may be shown by evidence that a domain name was acquired "primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of [Respondent's] documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name." Under paragraph 4(b)(iv), bad faith may be shown by evidence that "by using the domain name, [Respondent] intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [Respondent's] web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of [Respondent's] web site or location or of a product or service on [Respondent's] web site or location."
Respondent does not appear to have made any active use of the disputed domain name. In the absence of any explanation from Respondent, the Panel considers it reasonable to infer that Respondent registered the domain name intending to use it in a manner calculated to create and exploit confusion with Complainant's well-known mark, most likely either by selling the domain name or by using it to attract Internet users seeking Complainant, and that Respondent is maintaining the domain name for that purpose. See, e.g., Otter Products, LLC v. Robot Flower, supra (finding bad faith registration and use in similar circumstances). The Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
Having considered the three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <enterprisecarsales.biz> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
David E. Sorkin, Panelist
Dated: April 30, 2018
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page