Enterprise Rent-A-Car Company v. Terri
Aldridge
Claim
Number: FA0308000190507
Complainant is Enterprise Rent-A-Car Company, St.
Louis, MO (“Complainant”) represented by Vicki
L. Little, of Schultz & Little, L.L.P.
Respondent is Terri Aldridge, Port
Allen, LA (“Respondent”).
REGISTRAR
AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The
domain name at issue is <enterprisecarsales.net>, registered with Network
Solutions, Inc.
The
undersigned certifies that he or she has acted independently and impartially
and to the best of his or her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as
Panelist in this proceeding.
Hon.
Ralph Yachnin as Panelist.
Complainant
submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the "Forum")
electronically on August 22, 2003; the Forum received a hard copy of the
Complaint on August 25, 2003.
On
August 27, 2003, Network Solutions, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that
the domain name <enterprisecarsales.net> is registered with Network
Solutions, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Network
Solutions, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Network Solutions,
Inc. registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain-name
disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN's Uniform Domain
Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy").
On
August 27, 2003, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative
Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of
September 16, 2003 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@enterprisecarsales.net by e-mail.
Having
received no Response from Respondent, using the same contact details and
methods as were used for the Commencement Notification, the Forum transmitted
to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On
September 29, 2003 pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute
decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Hon. Ralph Yachnin 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."
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 makes the following assertions:
1. Respondent’s <enterprisecarsales.net>
domain name is identical to Complainant’s ENTERPRISE CAR SALES mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or
legitimate interests in the <enterprisecarsales.net> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <enterprisecarsales.net>
domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in
this proceeding.
Complainant,
Enterprise Rent-A-Car Company, has registered and used various marks
incorporating the ENTERPRISE mark since 1985 to denote its vehicle rental,
leasing, and sales services (e.g. U.S. Reg. No. 1,343,167 for the ENTERPRISE
mark; U.S. Reg. No. 2,371,192 for the ENTERPRISE RENT-A-CAR mark; U.S. Reg. No.
2,192,909 for the ENTERPRISE 1 800 CAR SALES mark). On April 15, 1997,
Complainant registered the ENTERPRISE CAR SALES mark (U.S. Reg. No. 2,052,193)
for use in connection with automobile dealership services. Along with its
registration of the ENTERPRISE CAR SALES mark, Complainant registered the
<enterpriserentacar.com> domain name on August 20, 1996 and the
<enterprise.com> domain name two years later, and has used both domain
names continuously since that time.
Respondent,
Terri Aldridge, registered the <enterprisecarsales.net> domain
name on February 15, 2000, without license or authorization to use
Complainant’s ENTERPRISE CAR SALES mark for any purpose. Respondent does not
use the disputed domain name.
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.
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
established rights in the ENTERPRISE CAR SALES mark through registration of the
mark with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. See Janus Int’l Holding Co. v. Rademacher, D2002-0201 (WIPO Mar. 5,
2002) (finding that Panel decisions have held that registration of a mark is prima facie evidence of validity, which
creates a rebuttable presumption that the mark is inherently distinctive. Respondent has the burden of refuting this
assumption); see also Men’s Wearhouse, Inc. v. Wick, FA 117861 (Nat.
Arb. Forum Sept. 16, 2002) (“Under U.S. trademark law, registered marks hold a
presumption that they are inherently distinctive and have acquired secondary meaning”).
Respondent’s <enterprisecarsales.net>
domain name is identical to
Complainant’s ENTERPRISE CAR SALES mark, as it entirely incorporates
Complainant’s registered mark. The only differences between the domain name
and Complainant’s mark (the elimination of the spaces between the words of the
mark and the addition of a top-level domain name) are administrative features
of the DNS and are thus forced upon Respondent by the nature of the
domain-naming system. See Hannover Ruckversicherungs-AG v.
Ryu, FA 102724 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 7, 2002) (finding
<hannoverre.com> to be identical to HANNOVER RE, “as spaces are
impermissible in domain names and a generic top-level domain such as ‘.com’ or
‘.net’ is required in domain names”); see also Busy Body, Inc. v. Fitness Outlet Inc., D2000-0127 (WIPO Apr. 22,
2000) (finding that "the addition of the generic top-level domain (gTLD)
name ‘.com’ is . . . without legal significance since use of a gTLD is required
of domain name registrants").
Accordingly, the
Panel finds that the <enterprisecarsales.net> domain name is identical to Complainant’s
ENTERPRISE CAR SALES mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Respondent has made no use of the disputed domain name, and did not
submit a response to the Complaint to explain its non-use of the domain name.
The Panel finds that Respondent has not made demonstrable preparations to use
the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or
services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i). Respondent has also not made a
legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name pursuant to
Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). Thus, these provisions of the Policy do not apply to
Respondent. See Pharmacia & Upjohn AB v. Romero, D2000-1273 (WIPO Nov. 13, 2000) (finding
no rights or legitimate interests where Respondent failed to submit a Response
to the Complaint and had made no use of the domain name in question); see
also Boeing Co. v. Bressi,
D2000-1164 (WIPO Oct. 23, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests
where Respondent has advanced no basis on which the Panel could conclude that
it has a right or legitimate interest in the domain names, and no use of the
domain names has been established).
No evidence before the Panel implies that Respondent has ever been
“commonly known by” the name ENTERPRISECARSALES. Therefore, the Panel finds
that Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) does not apply to Respondent. See
Gallup Inc. v. Amish Country Store,
FA 96209 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 23, 2001) (finding that Respondent does not have
rights in a domain name when Respondent is not known by the mark); see also RMO,
Inc. v. Burbridge, FA 96949 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 16, 2001) (interpreting
Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) "to require a showing that one has been commonly known
by the domain name prior to registration of the domain name to prevail")
Accordingly, the
Panel finds that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the
<enterprisecarsales.net> domain
name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Respondent has not made use of the disputed domain name. Given the fact
that it is identical to Complainant’s ENTERPRISE CAR SALES mark, the Panel not
only finds that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith, but that
Respondent’s passive holding of that domain name amounts to bad faith use under
the Policy. See Telstra Corp. v. Nuclear Marshmallows, D2000-0003 (WIPO Feb. 18, 2000)
(finding that “it is possible, in certain circumstances, for inactivity by the
Respondent to amount to the domain name being used in bad faith”); see also Mondich & Am. Vintage Wine Biscuits,
Inc. v. Brown, D2000-0004 (WIPO Feb. 16, 2000) (holding that Respondent’s
failure to develop its website in a two year period raises the inference of
registration in bad faith).
The Panel thus finds
that Respondent registered and used the <enterprisecarsales.net> domain name in bad faith, and that Policy ¶
4(a)(iii) is 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 <enterprisecarsales.net> domain name be TRANSFERRED
from Respondent to Complainant.
Hon. Ralph Yachnin, Panelist
Justice, Supreme Court, NY (Ret.)
Dated: October 13, 2003