Enterprise Holdings, Inc. v. 846 Now
Claim Number: FA2204001991698
Complainant is Enterprise Holdings, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Elizabeth K. Brock of Harness, Dickey & Pierce, PLC, Michigan, USA. Respondent is 846 Now ("Respondent"), North Carolina, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <enterprisecarsales.me>, 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 8, 2022; the Forum received payment on April 8, 2022.
On April 11, 2022, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by email to the Forum that the <enterprisecarsales.me> 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 14, 2022, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of May 4, 2022 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.me. Also on April 14, 2022, 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 May 12, 2022, 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 and ENTERPRISE CAR SALES marks, which it and related entities use for various vehicle-related services in the United States and other countries throughout the world. Complainant owns numerous trademark registrations for these marks, including a United States registration for ENTERPRISE in standard character form issued in 1985; a Montenegro registration for the ENTERPRISE mark; and various registrations for ENTERPRISE CAR SALES in both standard character and design form.
Respondent is the registrant of the disputed domain name <enterprisecarsales.me>, registered in September 2021. The domain name resolves to a website hosted by the registrar that is composed of pay-per-click links related to Complainant’s business, including links to competitors of Complainant. Complainant states that Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name and has no legitimate rights therein.
Complainant contends on the above grounds that the disputed domain name <enterprisecarsales.me> is identical or confusingly similar to its ENTERPRISE and ENTERPRISE CAR SALES marks; 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 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 set forth in a complaint; however, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory or unsubstantiated arguments. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, § 4.3 (3d ed. 2017), available at http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (dismissing complaint where complainant failed to "produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations").
The disputed domain name <enterprisecarsales.me> corresponds to Complainant's registered ENTERPRISE CAR SALES trademark, with the spaces omitted, appending the ".me" top-level domain thereto. The omission of spaces and the addition of a top-level domain are normally irrelevant for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. See, e.g., Prisma Health f/k/a SC Health Co. v. James Brunson, FA 1991504 (Forum May 10, 2022) (finding <prismahealth.co> identical to PRISMA HEALTH); Enterprise Holdings, Inc. v. Stephanie Wynter, FA 1780232 (Forum Apr. 30, 2018) (finding <enterprisecarsales.biz> identical or confusingly similar to ENTERPRISE CAR SALES). The Panel considers the disputed domain name to be identical to a mark in which Complainant has rights.
The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant's registered mark without authorization, and it is being used for a parked page composed of pay-per-click links, including links to Complainant’s competitors. Such use does not give rise to rights or legitimate interests under the Policy. See, e.g., Transamerica Corp. v. Domain Administrator, FA 1989903 (Forum Apr. 25, 2022) (finding lack of rights or interests in similar circumstances); New York Quality Healthcare Corp. d/b/a Fidelis Care v. Host Master / Transure Enterprise Ltd, FA 1873745 (Forum Jan. 13, 2020) (same).
Complainant has made a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the 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 is being used in bad faith. Under paragraph 4(b)(iii) of the Policy, bad faith may be shown by evidence that Respondent registered the disputed domain name "primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor." 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 registered a domain name corresponding to Complainant's well-known mark, and it is being used to display what the Panel infers to be pay-per-click links, including links to competitors of Complainant. Such conduct is indicative of bad faith registration and use under the Policy. See, e.g., Transamerica Corp. v. Domain Administrator, supra (finding bad faith registration and use in similar circumstances); New York Quality Healthcare Corp. d/b/a Fidelis Care v. Host Master / Transure Enterprise Ltd, supra (same). The Panel so finds.
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.me> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
David E. Sorkin, Panelist
Dated: May 13, 2022
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page