Enterprise Rent-A-Car Company v. Brian Robinson
Claim Number: FA0704000956415
Complainant is Enterprise Rent-A-Car Company (“Complainant”), represented by Vicki
L. Little, of Schultz & Little, L.L.P.,
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN
NAME
The domain name at issue is <car-rental-enterprise.info>, registered with Direct Information Pvt. Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com.
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.
Honorable Karl V. Fink (Ret.), as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on April 9, 2007; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on April 11, 2007.
On April 9, 2007, Direct Information Pvt. Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <car-rental-enterprise.info> domain name is registered with Direct Information Pvt. Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Direct Information Pvt. Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com has verified that Respondent is bound by the Direct Information Pvt. Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com 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 April 12, 2007, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of May 2, 2007 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@car-rental-enterprise.info by e-mail.
Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On May 10, 2007, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Honorable Karl V. Fink (Ret.), as Panelist.
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
<car-rental-enterprise.info>
domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <car-rental-enterprise.info> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <car-rental-enterprise.info> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, Enterprise Rent-A-Car Company, is a well known
provider of vehicle rental, leasing and sales services. Complainant holds registrations with the United
States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) for the
Respondent registered the <car-rental-enterprise.info> domain name on November 4, 2006. Respondent is using the disputed domain name to operate a website featuring links to various third-party websites offering car rental services in direct competition with Complainant. Respondent’s website includes Complainant’s mark.
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 established rights in the
Respondent’s <car-rental-enterprise.info> domain
name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s marks. The disputed domain name includes Complainant’s
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
Complainant’s assertion that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name creates a prima facie case pursuant to the Policy. Once a prima facie case has been established by Complainant, the burden shifts to Respondent to demonstrate that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). The Panel views Respondent’s failure to submit a Response as evidence that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Nonetheless, the Panel will evaluate the available evidence to determine whether Respondent has rights or legitimate interests as contemplated by Policy ¶ 4(c). See G.D. Searle v. Martin Mktg., FA 118277 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 1, 2002) (“Because Complainant’s Submission constitutes a prima facie case under the Policy, the burden effectively shifts to Respondent. Respondent’s failure to respond means that Respondent has not presented any circumstances that would promote its rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).”); see also Parfums Christian Dior v. QTR Corp., D2000-0023 (WIPO Mar. 9, 2000) (finding that by not submitting a response, the respondent has failed to invoke any circumstance which could demonstrate any rights or legitimate interests in the domain name).
Respondent is using the <car-rental-enterprise.info>
domain name to operate a website
populated with links to third-party websites offering competing car rental
services. Respondent’s website includes
Complainant’s mark. The Panel
finds that Respondent is not using the disputed domain name in connection with
a bona fide offering of goods or
services, as no goods or services are provided, or a legitimate noncommercial
or fair use, as presumably Respondent collects pay-per-click fees. As such, the Panel finds that Respondent has
not established rights or legitimate interests as contemplated by Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii). See eBay Inc. v. Hong, D2000-1633 (WIPO
Jan. 18, 2001) (stating that the respondent’s use of the complainant’s entire
mark in domain names makes it difficult to infer a legitimate use); see also Bank of
Am. Corp. v. Nw. Free Cmty. Access, FA 180704 (Nat. Arb.
Forum Sept. 30, 2003) (“Respondent's demonstrated intent to divert Internet
users seeking Complainant's website to a website of Respondent and for
Respondent's benefit is not a bona fide offering of goods or services under
Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and it is not a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under
Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”).
There is no available evidence
that Respondent is commonly known by the <car-rental-enterprise.info>
domain name. Respondent’s WHOIS
information identifies Respondent as “Brian Robinson,” a name with no obvious
relationship to the disputed domain name.
Further, Respondent is not affiliated with or sponsored by Complainant
in any way. The Panel finds that
Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and has not
established rights or legitimate interests pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Tercent Inc. v. Lee 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 Am. W. Airlines, Inc. v. Paik, FA 206396 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 22, 2003) (“Respondent
has registered the domain name under the name ‘Ilyoup Paik a/k/a David
Sanders.’ Given the WHOIS domain name
registration information, Respondent is not commonly known by the
[<awvacations.com>] domain name.”).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
Respondent has registered and is using the <car-rental-enterprise.info> domain name, which is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ENTERPRISE mark, in order to redirect Internet users to Respondent’s website displaying links to competing websites. The Panel finds that such use constitutes disruption and is evidence of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See Disney Enters., Inc. v. Noel, FA 198805 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 11, 2003) (“Respondent registered a domain name confusingly similar to Complainant's mark to divert Internet users to a competitor's website. It is a reasonable inference that Respondent's purpose of registration and use was to either disrupt or create confusion for Complainant's business in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) [and] (iv).”); see also EBAY, Inc. v. MEOdesigns, D2000-1368 (WIPO Dec. 15, 2000) (finding that the respondent registered and used the domain name <eebay.com> in bad faith where the respondent has used the domain name to promote competing auction sites).
Respondent’s inclusion of Complainant’s mark in its domain
name suggests that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name
in bad faith. Because the <car-rental-enterprise.info> domain
name is confusingly similar to
Complainant’s marks, Internet users seeking Complainant’s genuine website may
instead find themselves misdirected to Respondent’s website. Presumably, Respondent is profiting from this
confusion by collecting pay-per-click referral fees. The Panel finds that such use is evidence of
bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Am. Univ. v. Cook, FA
208629 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 22, 2003) (“Registration and use of a domain name
that incorporates another's mark with the intent to deceive Internet users in
regard to the source or affiliation of the domain name is evidence of bad
faith.”); see also State Fair of Texas v. Granbury.com, FA
95288 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 12, 2000) (finding bad faith where the respondent
registered the domain name <bigtex.net> to infringe on the complainant’s
goodwill and attract Internet users to the respondent’s website).
The Panel finds that 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 <car-rental-enterprise.info> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Honorable Karl V. Fink (Ret.), Panelist
Dated: May 23, 2007
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
National
Arbitration Forum