Dollar Rent A Car Inc. v. Albert Jackson
Claim Number: FA0308000187421
Complainant is Dollar Rent A Car Inc., Tulsa, OK
(“Complainant”) represented by Nicole M.
Meyer, of Dickinson Wright, PLLC. Respondent is Albert Jackson, George Town, Grand Cayman (“Respondent”).
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The
domain name at issue is <wwwdollarrentacar.com>,
registered with Iholdings.Com, Inc. d/b/a Dotregistrar.Com.
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.
Judge
Harold Kalina (Ret.) as Panelist.
Complainant
submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the "Forum")
electronically on August 19, 2003; the Forum received a hard copy of the
Complaint on August 19, 2003.
On
August 19, 2003, Iholdings.Com, Inc. d/b/a Dotregistrar.Com confirmed by e-mail
to the Forum that the domain name <wwwdollarrentacar.com>
is registered with Iholdings.Com, Inc. d/b/a Dotregistrar.Com and that
Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Iholdings.Com, Inc. d/b/a
Dotregistrar.Com has verified that Respondent is bound by the Iholdings.Com,
Inc. d/b/a Dotregistrar.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
August 20, 2003, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative
Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of
September 9, 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@wwwdollarrentacar.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
September 18, 2003, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute
decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Judge Harold Kalina
(Ret.) 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 <wwwdollarrentacar.com> domain name is confusingly similar to
Complainant’s DOLLAR RENT A CAR mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or
legitimate interests in the <wwwdollarrentacar.com>
domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <wwwdollarrentacar.com> domain
name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in
this proceeding.
Complainant is
one of the largest vehicle rental companies in the United States. Complainant rents cars and other vehicles
from almost 300 locations nationwide.
Complainant holds over twenty registrations for the DOLLAR mark in the
U.S. and holds registrations for the DOLLAR mark or variations thereof in over
85 countries. Complainant registered
the DOLLAR RENT A CAR mark with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”)
on October 28, 1997 (Reg. No. 2,110,019).
Complainant holds the registration for the <dollar.com>,
<dollarcar.com> and <dollarrentacar.com> domain names and currently
uses the <dollar.com> website in conjunction with its business.
Respondent
registered the <wwwdollarrentacar.com>
domain name on May 13, 2003. Respondent
uses the disputed domain name to link to the <landing.domainsponsor.com>
website, which provides links to various commercial websites, including car
rental websites that compete with Complainant.
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 DOLLAR RENT A CAR mark through registration with the
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. See 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”); 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).
Respondent’s <wwwdollarrentacar.com> domain
name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark because the domain name fully
incorporates the DOLLAR RENT A CAR mark and has merely omitted the period after
the prefix “www” that would normally be found in a website’s address. Respondent, through its domain name takes
advantage of Internet users who mistakenly omit the period after the “www”
prefix when they attempt to access the <dollarrentacar.com> domain
name. Thus, the disputed domain name is
confusingly similar to Complainant’s DOLLAR RENT A CAR mark. See
Marie Claire Album v. Blakely,
D2002-1015 (WIPO Dec. 23, 2002) (holding that the letters "www" are
not distinct in the "Internet world" and thus Respondent 's
<wwwmarieclaire.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's
MARIE CLAIRE trademark); see also Bank of Am. Corp. v. InterMos, FA 95092
(Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 1, 2000) (finding that Respondent’s domain name
<wwwbankofamerica.com> is confusingly similar to Complainant’s registered
trademark BANK OF AMERICA because it “takes advantage of a typing error
(eliminating the period between the www and the domain name) that users
commonly make when searching on the Internet”).
The Panel finds
that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
Due to
Respondent’s failure to contest the allegations of the Complaint, the Panel may
presume that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the <wwwdollarrentacar.com> domain
name. See Pavillion Agency, Inc. v. Greenhouse Agency Ltd., D2000-1221
(WIPO Dec. 4, 2000) (finding that Respondents’ failure to respond can be
construed as an admission that they have no legitimate interest in the domain
names); see also BIC Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG v. Tweed, D2000-0418 (WIPO June
20, 2000) (“By not submitting a response, Respondent has failed to invoke any
circumstance which could demonstrate, pursuant to ¶ 4(c) of the Policy, any
rights or legitimate interests in the domain name”).
Also,
the record fails to establish that Respondent was authorized or licensed to
register or use domain names that incorporate Complainant’s marks. The WHOIS information for the <wwwdollarrentacar.com> domain
name fails to establish Respondent as one commonly known by the disputed domain
name or the WWWDOLLARRENTACAR mark.
Therefore, the Panel concludes that Respondent lacks rights or
legitimate interests in the disputed domain name 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 interest where Respondent was not commonly known by the mark and
never applied for a license or permission from Complainant to use the
trademarked name).
In addition, the
Panel presumes that Respondent has received pay-per-click fees by using the
misleading <wwwdollarrentacar.com>
domain name to link to commercial websites and has attempted to disrupt
Complainant’s business by linking the disputed domain name to websites of
Complainant’s competitors. Respondent’s
use of the misleading <wwwdollarrentacar.com>
domain name to commercially benefit and to disrupt Complainant’s business
is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶
4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶
4(c)(iii). See Black & Decker Corp.
v. Clinical Evaluations, FA 112629 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 24, 2002) (holding
that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to redirect Internet users to
commercial websites, unrelated to Complainant and presumably with the purpose of
earning a commission or pay-per-click referral fee did not evidence rights or
legitimate interests in the domain name); see
also Winmark Corp. d/b/a Play It
Again Sports v. In The Zone a/k/a Giant Sports Factory, FA 128652 (Nat.
Arb. Forum Dec. 6, 2002) (finding that Respondent had no rights or legitimate
interests in a domain name that used Complainant’s mark to redirect Internet
users to a competitor’s website).
Furthermore, the
<wwwdollarrentacar.com> domain
name takes advantage of Internet users who mistakenly omit the period between
the prefix “www” and Complainant’s DOLLAR RENT A CAR mark. Respondent commercially benefits from
Internet users who misspell Complainant’s mark because Respondent presumably
receives pay-per-click fees from Internet vendors who receive visitors via
Respondent’s disputed domain name.
Hence, Respondent has engaged in the practice of typosquatting, which is
evidence that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed
domain name. See Nat’l Ass’n of Prof’l Baseball Leagues, Inc. v. Zuccarini,
D2002-1011 (WIPO Jan. 21, 2003) (“Typosquatting … as a means of redirecting
consumers against their will to another site, does not qualify as a bona fide
offering of goods or services, whatever may be the goods or services offered at
that site.”); see also RE/MAX Int’l, Inc. v. Seocho, FA 142046
(Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 25, 2003) (finding that Respondent has no rights or
legitimate interests in the <wwwremax.com> domain name as it is merely
using Complainant’s mark to earn profit from pop-up advertisements).
The Panel finds
that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
It can be
inferred that Respondent had actual or constructive knowledge of Complainant’s
mark because Complainant’s DOLLAR RENT A CAR mark is registered with the USPTO
and worldwide, the disputed domain name fully incorporates the mark, and the
disputed domain name provides links to Complainant’s competitors. Registration of a domain name, despite
knowledge of Complainant’s rights, is evidence of bad faith registration
pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Samsonite Corp. v. Colony Holding,
FA 94313 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 17, 2000) (finding that evidence of bad faith
includes actual or constructive knowledge of a commonly known mark at the time
of registration); see also Orange Glo Int’l v. Blume, FA 118313
(Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 4, 2002) (“Complainant’s OXICLEAN mark is listed on the
Principal Register of the USPTO, a status that confers constructive notice on
those seeking to register or use the mark or any confusingly similar variation
thereof”).
Furthermore,
Respondent has engaged in the practice of typosquatting, which is evidence that
Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith. See
Black & Decker Corp. v. Khan, FA
137223 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 3, 2003) (finding the <wwwdewalt.com> domain
name was registered to “ensnare those individuals who forget to type the period
after the “www” portion of [a] web-address,” evidence that the domain name was
registered and used in bad faith); see
also Nat’l Ass’n of Prof’l Baseball
Leagues, Inc. v. Zuccarini,
D2002-1011 (WIPO Jan. 21, 2003) (“Typosquatting … is the intentional
misspelling of words with intent to intercept and siphon off traffic from its
intended destination, by preying on Internauts who make common typing
errors. Typosquatting is inherently
parasitic and of itself evidence of bad faith”).
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 <wwwdollarrentacar.com>
domain name be TRANSFERRED from
Respondent to Complainant.
Judge Harold Kalina (Ret.), Panelist
Dated:
September 24, 2003
Click Here to return
to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home
Page