Enterprise Rent-A-Car Company v. Andrey
Vishnevskii d/b/a Cosmos1 a/k/a NA NA
Claim
Number: FA0404000263577
Complainant is Enterprise Rent-A-Car Company (“Complainant”),
represented by Vicki L. Little, of Schultz & Little, L.L.P.,
640 Cepi Drive, Suite A, Chesterfield, MO 63005-1221. Respondent is Andrey
Vishnevskii d/b/a Cosmos1 a/k/a NA NA (“Respondent”), Starii Per. 24-11, St.
Petersburg, RU 201223.
REGISTRAR
AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The
domain name at issue is <enterpriserentals.com>, registered with Enom,
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.
Louis
E. Condon as Panelist.
Complainant
submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the "Forum")
electronically on April 28, 2004; the Forum received a hard copy of the
Complaint on May 3, 2004.
On
April 29, 2004, Enom, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain
name <enterpriserentals.com> is registered with Enom, Inc. and
that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Enom, Inc. has verified
that Respondent is bound by the Enom, 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
May 5, 2004, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative
Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of
May 25, 2004 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@enterpriserentals.com 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
June 4, 2004, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by
a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Louis E. Condon 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 <enterpriserentals.com>
domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ENTERPRISE mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or
legitimate interests in the <enterpriserentals.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <enterpriserentals.com>
domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in
this proceeding.
Complainant
Enterprise Rent-A-Car Company is one of the largest rental car companies in
North America.
Complainant
holds trademark registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark
Office for the ENTERPRISE mark (Reg. No. 1,343,167 issued June 18, 1985 and
Reg. No. 2,052,192 issued April 15, 1997).
Complainant also holds trademark registrations for the ENTERPRISE
RENT-A-CAR mark (Reg. No. 2,371,192 issued July 25, 2000, Reg. No. 2,010,244
issued October 22, 1996 and Reg. No. 2,010,245 issued October 22, 1996), the
ENTERPRISE RENT-A-TRUCK mark (Reg. No. 2,532,725 issued January 22, 2002), and
the E ENTERPRISE mark (Reg. No. 2,190,147 issued September 22, 1998).
Complainant has
operated a chain of ENTERPISE leasing and rental stores since 1957. Currently, Complainant has more
than 533,000 vehicles in its rental fleet and more than 5,000 locations. Complainant operates in five countries with
more than 50,000 employees and annual revenue of more than $6 billion. Complainant has used the ENTERPRISE mark
continuously and extensively since 1985 in advertising promotions. Thus, the ENTERPRISE mark
enjoys a high degree of recognition in North America and elsewhere.
Complainant’s
main website is operated at the <enterprise.com> domain name.
Respondent
registered the disputed domain name on May 11, 2000. Respondent is using the domain name to redirect Internet users to
a website that features a search engine which provides links to a variety of
car rental websites and features a variety of advertisements.
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 that it has rights in the ENTERPRISE mark through numerous
trademark registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office and
through continued use of its mark in commerce for the last nineteen years. 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 Koninklijke
KPN N.V. v. Telepathy Inc., D2001-0217 (WIPO May 7, 2001) (finding that the
Policy does not require that the mark be registered in the country in which
Respondent operates. It is sufficient
that Complainant can demonstrate a mark in some jurisdiction); 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.”).
The domain name
registered by Respondent is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ENTERPRISE
mark because the domain name incorporates Complainant’s mark in its entirety
and simply adds the generic or descriptive term, “rentals.” The mere addition of a generic or
descriptive word to a registered mark does not negate the confusing similarity
of Respondent’s domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Furthermore, the generic or descriptive term
incorporated in the domain name describes Complainant’s business. See L.L. Bean, Inc. v. ShopStarNetwork, FA 95404 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept.
14, 2000) (finding that combining the generic word “shop” with Complainant’s
registered mark “llbean” does not circumvent Complainant’s rights in the mark
nor avoid the confusing similarity aspect of the ICANN Policy); see also Brambles Industries Ltd. v. Geelong Car Co.
Pty. Ltd., trading as Geelong City Motors, D2000-1153 (WIPO Oct. 17, 2000)
(finding that the domain name <bramblesequipment.com> is confusingly
similar because the combination of the two words "brambles" and
"equipment" in the domain name implies that there is an association
with Complainant’s business); see also Christie’s Inc. v. Tiffany’s Jewelry Auction Inc., D2001-0075 (WIPO
Mar. 6, 2001) (finding that the domain name
<christiesauction.com> is confusingly similar to Complainant's
mark since it merely adds the word "auction" used in its generic
sense).
The Panel finds
that Complainant fulfilled Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant has
alleged that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain
name that contains in its entirety Complainant’s mark. Due to Respondent’s failure to respond to
the Complaint, it is assumed that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate
interests in the disputed domain name.
The burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or
legitimate interests once Complainant establishes a prima facie case
pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). See
Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, D2000-0624 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000) (finding
that once Complainant asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate
interests with respect to the domain, the burden shifts to Respondent to
provide credible evidence that substantiates its claim of rights and legitimate
interests in the domain name); see also G.D. Searle v. Martin Mktg., FA
118277 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 1, 2002) (holding that where Complainant has
asserted that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to
the domain name it is incumbent on Respondent to come forward with concrete
evidence rebutting this assertion because this information is “uniquely within
the knowledge and control of the respondent”).
Respondent is
wholly appropriating Complainant’s mark in the disputed domain name to host a
website that links to Complainant’s competitors. Using Complainant’s mark to market its competitors’ car rental services
is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶
4(c)(i), nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of a domain name pursuant
to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See
Computerized Sec. Sys., Inc. v. Hu, FA 157321 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 23,
2003) (holding that Respondent’s appropriation of Complainant’s mark to market
products that compete with Complainant’s goods does not constitute a bona fide
offering of goods and services); see also Ameritrade Holdings Corp. v.
Polanski, FA 102715 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 11, 2002) (finding that
Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to redirect Internet users to a
financial services website, which competed with Complainant, was not a bona
fide offering of goods or services); see also Avery Dennison Corp. v. Steele,
FA 133626 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan 10, 2003) (finding that Respondent had no rights
or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name where it used Complainant’s
mark, without authorization, to attract Internet users to its business, which competed
with Complainant).
Nothing in the
record, including the WHOIS domain name registration information, suggests that
Respondent is commonly known by the domain name or by Complainant’s mark
pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Tercent Inc.
v. Yi, FA 139720 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 10, 2003) (stating “nothing in
Respondent’s WHOIS information implies that Respondent is ‘commonly known by’
the disputed domain name” as one factor in determining that Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)
does not apply); see also Compagnie de Saint Gobain v. Com-Union
Corp., D2000-0020 (WIPO
Mar. 14, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where Respondent was
not commonly known by the mark and never applied for a license or permission
from Complainant to use the trademarked name).
The Panel finds
that Complainant fulfilled Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Respondent is
using <enterpriserentals.com> domain name to provide a search
engine and links to a variety of car rental websites. Complainant’s business also rents cars. The Panel finds that, by creating confusion around Complainant’s
mark, Respondent is attempting to disrupt the business of a competitor. Respondent’s use of Complainant’s mark to
sell goods and services similar to Complainant’s goods and services is evidence
of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See Surface Protection Indus., Inc. v. Webposters, D2000-1613 (WIPO
Feb. 5, 2001) (finding that, given the competitive relationship between
Complainant and Respondent, Respondent likely registered the contested domain
name with the intent to disrupt Complainant's business and create user
confusion); see also S. Exposure v.
S. Exposure, Inc., FA 94864 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 18, 2000) (finding
Respondent acted in bad faith by attracting Internet users to a website that
competes with Complainant’s business); see also SR Motorsports v. Rotary Performance, FA 95859 (Nat. Arb. Forum
Jan. 4, 2001) (finding it "obvious" that the domain names were
registered for the primary purpose of disrupting the competitor's business when
the parties are part of the same, highly specialized field).
Furthermore,
Respondent registered a domain name that contains in its entirety Complainant’s
well-known mark and did so for Respondent’s commercial gain. Respondent’s domain name diverts Internet
users seeking Complainant’s services to Respondent’s commercial website through
the use of a domain name that is confusingly similar to Complainant’s
mark. Additionally, Respondent is
unfairly and opportunistically benefiting from the goodwill associated with
Complainant’s ENTERPRISE mark.
Respondent’s practice of diversion, motivated by commercial gain,
constitutes bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See H-D Michigan, Inc. v. Petersons Auto.,
FA 135608 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 8, 2003) (finding that the disputed domain name
was registered and used in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) through
Respondent’s registration and use of the infringing domain name to
intentionally attempt to attract Internet users to its fraudulent website by
using Complainant’s famous marks and likeness); see also G.D. Searle &
Co. v. Celebrex Drugstore, FA 123933 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 21, 2002)
(finding that Respondent registered and used the domain name in bad faith
pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) because Respondent was using the confusingly
similar domain name to attract Internet users to its commercial website); see
also Kmart v. Khan, FA 127708 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 22, 2002) (finding that
if Respondent profits from its diversionary use of Complainant's mark when the
domain name resolves to commercial websites and Respondent fails to contest the
Complaint, it may be concluded that Respondent is using the domain name in bad
faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)).
The Panel finds
that Complainant fulfilled Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Complainant
having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the
Panel concludes that relief should be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it
is Ordered that the <enterpriserentals.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED
from Respondent to Complainant.
Louis E. Condon, Panelist
Dated:
June 18, 2004