Enterprise Holdings, Inc. v. umit bozdag
Claim Number: FA2212002022843
Complainant is Enterprise Holdings, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Joel R. Samuels of Harness, Dickey & Pierce, PLC, USA. Respondent is umit bozdag (“Respondent”), Turkey.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <enterpriserental.co>, registered with NameCheap, Inc..
The undersigned certifies that has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Paul M. DeCicco, as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on December 5, 2022; Forum received payment on December 6, 2022.
On December 06, 2022, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <enterpriserental.co> domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. NameCheap, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameCheap, Inc. registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).
On December 12, 2022, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of January 3, 2023 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@enterpriserental.co. Also on December 12, 2022, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the e-mail addresses served and the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to Respondent via post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts.
Having received no response from Respondent, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On January 5, 2023, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Paul M. DeCicco as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that 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" through submission of Electronic and Written Notices, as defined in Rule 1 and Rule 2. Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, 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
Complainant contends as follows:
Complainant, Enterprise Holdings, Inc., is a vehicle rental service.
Complainant has rights in the ENTERPRISE mark through trademark registrations worldwide, including with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”).
Respondent’s <enterpriserental.co> domain name is confusingly similar to the ENTERPRISE mark as it incorporates the entire mark and merely adds a term that describes Complainant’s services and a country code top-level domain.
Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the <enterpriserental.co> domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name. Respondent also fails to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the at-issue domain name, as Respondent is taking advantage of Complainant’s ENTERPRISE mark to divert Internet traffic away from Complainant. Respondent is also not actively using the domain name, which address a website that hosts pay-per-click hyperlinks. Lastly, Respondent is may use the <enterpriserental.co> domain name to send and receive emails for illegal phishing.
Respondent registered and uses the <enterpriserental.co> domain name in bad faith by hosting an inactive site that merely hosts pay-per-click hyperlinks. Respondent is trading off of Complainant’s fame and goodwill in the ENTERPRISE mark, diverting Internet traffic for commercial gain by confusing users as to the source or affiliation of the domain name. In addition, Respondent has pending UDRP cases that establish a pattern of bad faith. Finally, Respondent registered the domain name with a privacy service and actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the ENTERPRISE mark.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant has rights in the ENTERPRISE trademark.
Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant and had not been authorized to use Complainant’s trademark in any capacity.
Respondent registered the at‑issue domain name after Complainant acquired rights in the ENTERPRISE trademark.
Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to address a parking page that displays pay-per-click hyperlinks.
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."
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.
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(f), 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 set forth in a complaint; however, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory or unsubstantiated arguments. See WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 at ¶ 4.3; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (“Because Complainant did not produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations [. . .] the Panel finds it appropriate to dismiss the Complaint”).
The at-issue domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights.
Complainant’s registration of the ENTERPRISE mark with the USPTO, as well as any of its other government trademark registrations worldwide, demonstrates Complainant’s rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Haas Automation, Inc. v. Jim Fraser, FA 1627211 (Forum Aug. 4, 2015) (finding that Complainant’s USPTO registrations for the HAAS mark sufficiently demonstrate its rights in the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)); see also, Red Hat, Inc. v. Muhammad Shahzad, FA 1787738 (Forum June 19, 2018) (“Registration of a mark with multiple trademark agencies is sufficient to demonstrate rights to a mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”).
The at-issue domain name contains Complainant’s entire ENTERPRISE trademark followed by the suggestive term “rental” and with all followed by the “.co” top level domain name. The differences between Respondent’s <enterpriserental.co> domain name and Complainant’s ENTERPRISE trademark are insufficient to distinguish the at-issue domain name from Complainant’s trademark for the purposes of the Policy. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent’s <enterpriserental.co> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ENTERPRISE trademark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Wiluna Holdings, LLC v. Edna Sherman, FA 1652781 (Forum Jan. 22, 2016) (finding the addition of a generic term and gTLD is insufficient in distinguishing a disputed domain name from a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)); see also, Thomson Reuters Global Resources v Matthew Krawitz, FA 1548336 (Forum Apr. 21, 2014) (“Respondent adds the country-code top-level domain (“ccTLD”) “.co” to Complainant’s mark in the disputed domain name, which also fails to distinguish the domain name from Complainant’s mark… Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent’s <rueters.co> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s REUTERS mark.”).
Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must first make out a prima facie case showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of an at-issue domain name and then the burden, in effect, shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 18, 2006).
Respondent lacks both rights and legitimate interests in respect of the at-issue domain name. Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant’s trademarks in any capacity and, as discussed below, there are no Policy ¶4(c) circumstances from which the Panel might find that Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in respect of the at‑issue domain name. See Charter Communications Holding Company, LLC v. Taha Shaikh / Tskdesigners, FA 1814475 (Forum Nov. 25, 2018) (finding no rights or legitimate interests in <spectrumfeature.com> because complainant never gave respondent permission to use the mark in any manner and “Panels may use these assertions as evidence that no rights or legitimate interests exist in a disputed domain name.”).
WHOIS information for the at-issue domain name ultimately identifies the domain name’s registrant as “umit bozdag” and the record before the Panel contains no evidence that otherwise tends to prove that Respondent is commonly known by the <enterpriserental.co> domain name. The Panel therefore concludes that Respondent is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Coppertown Drive-Thru Sys., LLC v. Snowden, FA 715089 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 17, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <coppertown.com> domain name where there was no evidence in the record, including the WHOIS information, suggesting that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain name).
Respondent’s at-issue domain name addresses a parking website offering pay-per-click links at-least some of which are related to Complainant’s business. Using the confusingly similar domain name to promote third-party links indicates neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy¶ 4(c)(iii). See Insomniac Holdings, LLC v. Mark Daniels, FA 1735969 (Forum July 15, 2017) (”Respondent’s use of <edcorlando.xyz> also does not qualify as a bona fide offering… the <edcorlando.xyz> domain name resolves to a site containing pay-per-click hyperlinks and advertisements… Since these kinds of advertisements generate revenue for the holder of a domain name, they cannot be noncommercial; further, they do not qualify as a bona fide offering.”).
Given the forgoing, Complainant satisfies its initial burden and conclusively demonstrates Respondent’s lack of rights and lack of interests in respect of the at-issue domain name pursuant to Policy ¶4(a)(ii).
Respondent’s <enterpriserental.co> domain name was registered and used in bad faith. As discussed below without limitation, bad faith circumstances are present which allow the Panel to conclude that Respondent acted in bad faith pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.
First as mentioned above regarding rights and legitimate interests, Respondent uses its confusingly similar <enterpriserental.co> domain name to address a parking page. The parking page features pay-per-click hyperlinks to third-parties some of which may compete with Complainant. Using the at-issue domain name in this manner shows Respondent’s bad faith registration and use of <enterpriserental.co> under Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv). See block.one v. Negalize Interactive Things, FA 1798280 (Forum Aug. 21, 2018) (“Offering links to competing products or services can demonstrate bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) where a respondent registers a domain name that is confusingly similar to the mark of another.”); see also, Capital One Financial Corp. v. Above.com Domain Privacy / Above.com Domain Privacy, FA1501001598657 (Forum Feb. 20, 2015) (“This Panel agrees that Respondent’s use as shown in Exhibits C-D illustrates that Respondent here seeks commercial gain through a likelihood of confusion, as competing hyperlinks have been found to establish evidence of intent to seek commercial gain through referral fees, and thus demonstrates bad faith registration under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).”).
Next, Respondent has registered and is using multiple domain names containing Complainant’s ENTERPRISE trademark in a manner similar to how it uses the at-issue domain name. Respondent’s domain name registration endeavors shows a pattern of domain name abuse and thereby indicate Respondent’s bad faith in the instant case per Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii). See Ms. Amber Ruffin and Universal Television LLC v. jp Curtis FA2109001966621 (Forum October 28, 2021) (“The fact that Respondent registered three domain names having this effect at virtually the same time is sufficient to establish a pattern for the purposes of Policy ¶4(b)(ii).
Moreover, Respondent registered <enterpriserental.co> knowing that Complainant had trademark rights in the ENTERPRISE mark. Respondent’s prior knowledge is evident from the worldwide notoriety of Complainant’s trademark and from Respondent’s use of the suggestive term “rental” in the at-issue domain name. Respondent’s prior knowledge of Complainant's ENTERPRISE trademark further indicates that Respondent registered and used <enterpriserental.co> in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Minicards Vennootschap Onder FIrma Amsterdam v. Moscow Studios, FA 1031703 (Forum Sept. 5, 2007) (holding that respondent registered a domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) after concluding that respondent had "actual knowledge of Complainant's mark when registering the disputed domain name").
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <enterpriserental.co> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist
Dated: January 6, 2023
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page