Enterprise Holdings, Inc. v. Zhichao Yang
Claim Number: FA2103001935490
Complainant is Enterprise Holdings, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Josh A. Partington of Harness, Dickey & Pierce, PLC, Virginia, USA. Respondent is Zhichao Yang (“Respondent”), China.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <entreprisevansales.com>, registered with Alibaba Cloud Computing (Beijing) Co., Ltd..
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.
Paul M. DeCicco, as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on March 4, 2021; the Forum received payment on March 4, 2021.
On March 9, 2021, Alibaba Cloud Computing (Beijing) Co., Ltd. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <entreprisevansales.com> domain name is registered with Alibaba Cloud Computing (Beijing) Co., Ltd. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Alibaba Cloud Computing (Beijing) Co., Ltd. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Alibaba Cloud Computing (Beijing) Co., Ltd. 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 March 15, 2021, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Chinese language Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of April 5, 2021 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@entreprisevansales.com. Also on March 15, 2021, the Chinese language 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 Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On April 8, 2021, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Paul M. DeCicco 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.
PRELIMINARY ISSUE: SUPPORTED LANGUAGE REQUEST
The relevant Registration Agreement for the at-issue domain is written in Chinese making the favored language of the proceedings also in Chinese. However, pursuant to UDRP Rule 11(a), the Panel may find that there is a likely possibility that the Respondent is conversant and proficient in the English language and further that conducting the proceeding in Chinese would unfairly burden Complainant, while conducting the proceeding in English would not unfairly burden Respondent. Respondent targeted a U.S.-based company by incorporating the Complainant’s famous ENTERPRISE mark into the at-issue domain name. Doing so constitutes evidence that Respondent will not be prejudiced if the proceedings were to be conducted in English. See Morgan Stanley v. Peng Bi / Bi Peng, FA1709188 (Forum Feb. 16, 2017) (choosing to conduct the proceedings in English in part because “the disputed domain names contain a famous English language mark). Moreover, the <entreprisevansales.com> domain name has a top-level, “.com,” which primarily targets English speaking internet users and contains English based text in its second-level. Other UDRP panels have found that where Respondent likewise targeted a famous U.S. brand that such proceedings should go forward in English. See, e.g., Country Mutual Insurance Company and Country Life Insurance Company v. Zhichao Yang, FA 1926301 (Forum Jan. 29, 2021) and LoanDepot.com, LLC v. Zhichao Yang, FA 1924673 (Forum Jan. 12, 2021); see also, Textron Innovations Inc. v. xie rui dong, FA1750895 (Forum May 26, 2017) (selecting English as the language of the proceeding in part because the “[r]espondent targeted a U.S.- based company by registering the . . . domain name” and “utilized Anglican characters in its domain”). Significantly, the website addressed by the at-issue domain name is completely in English. Since it appears that Respondent has command of the English language, requiring Complainant to translate all the documents of the proceeding into Chinese would result in Complainant having to incur unnecessary additional costs and might well delay the proceeding. Moreover, Respondent, although having been given appropriate notice of the instant complaint, has failed to offer any objection to going forward in English.
Therefore, in light of all the foregoing, the Panel finds this proceeding should continue in English.
A. Complainant
Complainant contends as follows:
Complainant operates the famous businesses Enterprise Rent-A-Car, Alamo Rent-A-Car, and National Car Rental, among others.
Complainant has rights in the ENTERPRISE mark through Complainant’s registration of the mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”).
Respondent’s <entreprisevansales.com> is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ENTERPRISE mark as it fully incorporates Complainant’s ENTERPRISE mark, merely reversing the “er” portion of ENTERPRISE to mimic a common typographical error, adding the descriptive terms “van” and “sales,” and adding the required generic top-level domain identifier, “.com.”
Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the <entreprisevansales.com> domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name and Complainant has not licensed or otherwise permitted Respondent to use its ENTERPRISE mark. Respondent has not used the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services as Respondent uses it in connection with competitive hyperlinks.
Respondent registered and uses the <entreprisevansales.com> domain name in bad faith. First, Respondent registered a confusingly similar domain name that is used in connection with competitive hyperlinks. Furthermore, Respondent engages in typosquatting. Additionally, Respondent registered the domain name using a privacy shield. Finally, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights to the ENTERPRISE mark prior to registering the disputed domain name, evidenced by the famous nature of Complainant’s mark.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant has rights in the ENTERPRISE trademark.
Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant and had not been authorized to use Complainant’s trademark in any capacity.
Respondent registered the at‑issue domain name after Complainant acquired rights in the ENTERPRISE trademark.
Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to address a parking page that presents pay-per-click type hyperlinks including links to Complainant’s competition.
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 set forth in a complaint; however, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory or unsubstantiated arguments. See WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 at ¶ 4.3; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (“Because Complainant did not produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations [. . .] the Panel finds it appropriate to dismiss the Complaint”).
The at-issue domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights.
Complainant’s USPTO registration for its ENTERPRISE trademark is sufficient to demonstrate Complainant’s rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See DIRECTV, LLC v. The Pearline Group, FA 1818749 (Forum Dec. 30, 2018) (“Complainant’s ownership of a USPTO registration for DIRECTV demonstrate its rights in such mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”).
Respondent’s <entreprisevansales.com> domain name contains Complainant’s ENTERPRISE trademark with the letter “e” and “r” transposed, followed by the generic term(s) “van sales” and with all followed by a domain name-necessary top-level domain name, here “.com.” The differences between Respondent’s domain name and Complainant’s trademark are insufficient to distinguish the <entreprisevansales.com> domain name from Complainant’s ENTERPRISE mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Therefore, the Panel concludes that Respondent’s <entreprisevansales.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ENTERPRISE trademark. See Bank of America Corporation v. Above.com Domain Privacy, FA 1629452 (Forum Aug. 18, 2015) (finding that the <blankofamerica.com> domain name contains the entire BANK OF AMERICA mark and merely adds the gTLD ‘.com’ and the letter ‘l’ to create a common misspelling of the word ‘bank.’); see also Research Now Group, Inc. v. Pan Jing, FA 1735345 (Forum July 14, 2017) (“The … elimination of spacing [is] considered irrelevant when distinguishing between a mark and a domain name.”).
Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must first make out a prima facie case showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of an at-issue domain name and then the burden, in effect, shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006). Since Respondent failed to respond, Complainant’s prima facie showing acts conclusively.
Respondent lacks both rights and legitimate interests in respect of the at-issue domain name. Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant’s trademark in any capacity and, as discussed below, there are no Policy ¶ 4(c) circumstances from which the Panel might find that Respondent has rights or interests in respect of the at‑issue domain name. See Emerson Electric Co. v. golden humble / golden globals, FA 1787128 (Forum June 11, 2018) (“lack of evidence in the record to indicate a respondent is authorized to use [the] complainant’s mark may support a finding that [the] respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)”).
The WHOIS information for the at-issue domain name ultimately identifies the domain name’s registrant as “Zhichao Yang” and the record before the Panel contains no evidence tending to prove that Respondent is commonly known by the <entreprisevansales.com> domain name. The Panel therefore concludes that Respondent is not commonly known by the <entreprisevansales.com> domain name for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Braun Corp. v. Loney, FA 699652 (Forum July 7, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain names where the WHOIS information, as well as all other information in the record, gave no indication that the respondent was commonly known by the domain names, and the complainant had not authorized the respondent to register a domain name containing its registered mark).
Respondent uses the confusingly similar <entreprisevansales.com> domain name to address a parking website displaying links to third-party businesses offering products/services that compete with Complainant. Respondent’s use of the confusingly similar domain name in this manner indicates neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor a non-commercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See CheapCaribbean.com, Inc. v. Moniker Privacy Services, FA1411001589962 (Forum Jan. 1, 2015) (“The Panel finds that Respondent’s use of the <cheepcaribbean.com> name to promote links in competition with Complainant’s travel agency services does not fall within Policy ¶ 4(c)(i)’s bona fide offering of goods or services, nor does it amount to a legitimate noncommercial or fair use described in Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”).
Given the forgoing, Complainant satisfies its initial burden and conclusively demonstrates Respondent’s lack of rights and lack of interests in respect of the at-issue domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Respondent’s <entreprisevansales.com> domain name was registered and used in bad faith. As discussed below without limitation, bad faith circumstances are present which compel the Panel to conclude that Respondent acted in bad faith pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.
First as mentioned above regarding rights and legitimate interests, Respondent uses its confusingly similar <entreprisevansales.com> domain name to display competitive hyperlinks. Doing so shows Respondent’s bad faith registration and use of the at-issue domain name under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See block.one v. Negalize Interactive Things, FA 1798280 (Forum Aug. 21, 2018) (“Offering links to competing products or services can demonstrate bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) where a respondent registers a domain name that is confusingly similar to the mark of another.”).
Respondent is also engaged in typosquatting. Typosquatting is a practice whereby a domain name registrant deliberately introduces typographical errors or misspellings into a trademark and then uses the string in a domain name wishing and hoping that internet users will inadvertently type the malformed string when searching for products or services associated with the target trademark, or will otherwise confuse a misspelled trademark laden domain name with the target trademark and/or a domain name legitimately used by the mark holder. Here, in creating the at-issue domain name Respondent transposes an “e” and “r” in Complainant’s ENTERPRISE trademark and uses the intentional misspelling to form a confusingly similar domain name which not only contains a misspelling of the mark but apparently closely resembles Complainant’s active <enterprisevansales.com> domain name and website. Respondent’s typosquatting, in itself, is evidence of Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) bad faith. See Computerized Sec. Sys., Inc. v. Hu, FA 157321 (Forum June 23, 2003) (finding that the respondent engaged in typosquatting, which is evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)).
Next, although not argued by Complainant, Respondent has suffered over 170 adverse UDRP decisions. See, Morgan Stanley v. Zhichao Yang, FA 1932877 (Forum June 23, 2003). Respondent’s repeated and continued cybersquatting evidences a pattern of domain name abuse and suggests Respondent’s bad faith in the instant case pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii). See Tommy John, Inc. v. Carolina Rodrigues / Fundacion Comercio Electronico, FA2001001878688 (Forum Feb. 6, 2020) (finding bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii) where the respondent had been subject to numerous UDRP proceedings where panels ordered the transfer of disputed domain names containing the trademarks of the complainants).
Finally, Respondent registered <entreprisevansales.com> knowing that Complainant had trademark rights in the ENTERPRISE mark. Respondent’s prior knowledge is evident from the worldwide notoriety of Complainant’s trademark in the rental car marketplace. It is thus clear that Respondent intentionally registered the at-issue domain name to improperly exploit its trademark value, rather than for some benign reason. Respondent’s prior knowledge of Complainant's trademark further indicates that Respondent registered and used the <entreprisevansales.com> domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Minicards Vennootschap Onder FIrma Amsterdam v. Moscow Studios, FA 1031703 (Forum Sept. 5, 2007) (holding that respondent registered a domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) after concluding that respondent had "actual knowledge of Complainant's mark when registering the disputed domain name").
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <entreprisevansales.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist
Dated: April 9, 2021
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page