Enterprise Rent-A-Car Company v. Domain Park Limited
Claim Number: FA0802001152005
Complainant is Enterprise Rent-A-Car Company (“Complainant”), represented by David
R. Haarz, of Harness, Dickey & Pierce, P.L.C.,
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN
NAME
The domain name at issue is <eenterprisecarrental.com>, registered with Moniker Online Services, Inc.
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.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to
the National Arbitration Forum electronically on
On
On February 25, 2008, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of March 17, 2008 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@eenterprisecarrental.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
<eenterprisecarrental.com>
domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <eenterprisecarrental.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <eenterprisecarrental.com> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, Enterprise Rent-A-Car Co., provides car rental
services internationally. Complainant
registered its
Respondent’s disputed domain name was 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.
Complainant has provided the Panel with evidence of the
registration of its
Respondent’s <eenterprisecarrental.com>
domain name fully incorporates Complainant’s mark with the addition of the
letter “e” and the descriptive phrase “car rental.” The mere addition of a letter and a
descriptive phrase is not sufficient to distinguish the disputed domain name
from Complainant’s mark. See EBAY, Inc. v. MEOdesigns,
D2000-1368 (WIPO Dec. 15, 2000) (finding that the respondent’s domain name
<eebay.com> is confusingly similar to the complainant’s registered EBAY
trademark); Space Imaging LLC v. Brownell, AF-0298 (eResolution Sept.
22, 2000) (finding confusing similarity where the respondent’s domain name combines
the complainant’s mark with a generic term that has an obvious relationship to
the complainant’s business). In
addition, the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com,” is not considered
relevant when evaluating whether a disputed domain name is confusingly similar
to a mark. Busy Body, Inc. v. Fitness
Outlet Inc., D2000-0127 (WIPO
Therefore, the Panel finds Respondent’s <eenterprisecarrental.com> domain
name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s
The Panel finds Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
Complainant has asserted Respondent does not have rights or
legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Once Complainant presents a prima facie case supporting these assertions,
the burden shifts to Respondent to establish it does have rights or legitimate
interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). The Panel
finds Complainant has presented a sufficient prima facie case to support its assertions. Respondent failed to submit a response to
these proceedings. Therefore, the Panel
may assume Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the
disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). American
Express Co. v. Fang Suhendro, FA 129120
(Nat. Arb. Forum
Respondent’s disputed domain name resolves to a website
which displays links to Complainant’s competitors which also operate car rental
businesses. The Panel finds Respondent’s
use of the disputed domain name is not a use in connection with 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 Ameritrade Holdings Corp. v. Polanski, FA 102715 (Nat.
Arb. Forum Jan. 11, 2002) (finding that the respondent’s use of the
disputed domain name to redirect Internet users to a financial services
website, which competed with the complainant, was not a bona fide
offering of goods or services); see also Coryn Group, Inc. v. Media Insight, FA 198959 (Nat.
Arb. Forum Dec. 5, 2003) (finding that the respondent was not using the domain
names for a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate
noncommercial or fair use because the respondent used the names to divert
Internet users to a website that offered services that competed with those
offered by the complainant under its marks).
Respondent does not appear to be
commonly known by the <eenterprisecarrental.com>
domain name. Nothing in the WHOIS
information or record indicates Respondent is known by the disputed domain
name. Additionally, the record indicates
Complainant has never authorized Respondent to use its
The Panel finds Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
Respondent’s <eenterprisecarrental.com>
domain name resolves to a website which displays links to Complainant’s
competitors who operate car rental businesses.
The Panel finds Respondent’s use constitutes disruption and is evidence
of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See H-D Michigan Inc. v. Buell, FA 1106640
(Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 2, 2008) (“The disputed domain names resolve to
websites that list links to competitors of Complainant, evidence that
Respondent intends to disrupt Complainant’s business, a further indication of
bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).”); see also Disney Enters., Inc. v. Noel, FA 198805 (Nat. Arb. Forum
Respondent presumably receives click-through fees for
displaying links to Complainant’s competitors on the website resolving from the
confusingly similar <eenterprisecarrental.com>
domain name. Thus, the Panel finds
Respondent is attempting to profit from the goodwill associated with
Complainant’s mark, which is evidence of bad faith registration and use
pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See
Kmart v. Khan, FA 127708 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 22, 2002) (finding that
if the respondent profits from its diversionary use of the complainant's mark
when the domain name resolves to commercial websites and the respondent fails
to contest the complaint, it may be concluded that the respondent is using the
domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)); see also
Associated Newspapers Ltd. v. Domain
Manager, FA 201976 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov.
19, 2003) (“Respondent's prior use of the <mailonsunday.com> domain name
is evidence of bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) because the domain name
provided links to Complainant's competitors and Respondent presumably
commercially benefited from the misleading domain name by receiving
‘click-through-fees.’”).
The Panel finds Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) has been satisfied.
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <eenterprisecarrental.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Dated: April 3, 2008
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
National
Arbitration Forum