Enterprise Holdings, Inc. v. Ravi Singh / Ravi
Claim Number: FA2202001983289
Complainant is Enterprise Holdings, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Elizabeth K. Brock of Harness, Dickey & Pierce, PLC, Michigan, USA. Respondent is Ravi Singh / Ravi (“Respondent”), India.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <carsenterprise.com>, 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.
Paul M. DeCicco, as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on February 4, 2022; the Forum received payment on February 4, 2022.
On February 7, 2022, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <carsenterprise.com> 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 February 11, 2022, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 3, 2022 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@carsenterprise.com. Also on February 11, 2022, the 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 March 9, 2022, 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.
A. Complainant
Complainant contends as follows:
Complainant is very well-known in the car related business.
Complainant has rights in the ENTERPRISE mark through its registration of the mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”).
Respondent’s <carsenterprise.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ENTERPRISE mark. Respondent incorporates the mark in its entirety and adds the term “cars” along with the “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”).
Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the <carsenterprise.com> domain name as Respondent is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name nor did Complainant authorize Respondent to use the ENTERPRISE mark in any way. Respondent fails to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name. Instead, Respondent’s domain name resolves to a parked webpage that offers pay-per-click links to services associated with Complainant’s mark and business.
Respondent registered and used the <carsenterprise.com> domain name in bad faith as Respondent has engaged in a pattern of bad faith by being subject to multiple adverse UDRP decisions. Respondent’s domain name resolves to a parking page exhibiting pay-per-click links to services associated with Complainant’s business and mark. Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the ENTERPRISE mark due to the longstanding use and fame of the mark in commerce.
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 webpage that presents pay-per-click hyperlinks.
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 ownership of a USPTO trademark registration for the ENTERPRISE mark evidences Complainant’s rights in such trademark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Microsoft Corp. v. Burkes, FA 652743 (Forum Apr. 17, 2006) (“Complainant has established rights in the MICROSOFT mark through registration of the mark with the USPTO.”).
Further, the at-issue domain name contain Complainant’s entire ENTERPRISE trademark prefixed by the suggestive terms “cars,” with all followed by the top level domain name “.com”. The differences between Respondent’s <carsenterprise.com> domain name and Complainant’s ENTERPRISE trademark are insufficient to distinguish the at-issue domain name from Complainant’s trademark for the purposes of the Policy. Therefore, Respondent’s <carsenterprise.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ENTERPRISE trademark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Wiluna Holdings, LLC v. Edna Sherman, FA 1652781 (Forum Jan. 22, 2016) (finding the addition of a generic term and gTLD is insufficient in distinguishing a disputed domain name from a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)).
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).
Respondent lacks both rights and legitimate interests in respect of the at-issue domain name. Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant’s trademarks 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.
WHOIS information for the at-issue domain name identifies the domain name’s registrant as “Ravi Singh / Ravi” and the record before the Panel contains no evidence that otherwise tends to prove that Respondent is commonly known by the <carsenterprise.com> domain name. The Panel therefore concludes that Respondent is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Coppertown Drive-Thru Sys., LLC v. Snowden, FA 715089 (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 domain name addresses a parking webpage offering pay-per-click links some of which relate to services or products that compete with Complainant. Using the confusingly similar domain name to promote competitive links indicates neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy¶ 4(c)(iii). See Ashley Furniture Industries, Inc. v. domain admin / private registrations aktien gesellschaft, FA1506001626253 (Forum July 29, 2015) (“Respondent is using the disputed domain name to resolve to a web page containing advertising links to products that compete with those of Complainant. The Panel finds that this does not constitute a bona fide offering or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use.”).
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 pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Respondent’s <carsenterprise.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 <carsenterprise.com> domain name to address a parking page. The parking page features pay-per-click hyperlinks such as “Used Vehicles,” Used Cars, “Airport Rental Cars,” “Rental Cars,” “Used Car Sales,” “Used Cars,” “Airport Car Rental,” “Cheapest Airport Rental Cars,” and “Enterprise Rental Cars.” Such services compete with services offered by Complainant. Using the at-issue domain name in this manner shows Respondent’s bad faith registration and use of the at-issue domain name under Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv). 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.”); see also, American Council on Education and GED Testing Service LLC v. Anthony Williams, FA1760954 (Forum Jan. 8, 2018) (“Respondent’s hosting of links to Complainant’s competitors demonstrates bad faith registration and use of the <geddiploma.org> domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)”).
Next, Respondent has suffered numerous adverse UDRP decisions thereby indicating a pattern of domain name abuse and suggesting bad faith in the instant case pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii). 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 <carsenterprise.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 and from Respondent’s use of the suggestive term “cars’ in the at-issue domain name. Respondent’s prior knowledge of Complainant's trademark further indicates that Respondent registered and used <carsenterprise.com> 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 <carsenterprise.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist
Dated: March 10, 2022
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page