Enterprise Holdings, Inc. v. Host Master / Transure Enterprise Ltd
Claim Number: FA2302002031474
Complainant is Enterprise Holdings, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Joel R. Samuels of Harness, Dickey & Pierce, PLC, Missouri, USA. Respondent is Host Master / Transure Enterprise Ltd (“Respondent”), Delaware, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <enterprisecarsaless.com>, registered with Above.com Pty Ltd..
The undersigned certifies that she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Sandra J. Franklin as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on February 10, 2023; Forum received payment on February 10, 2023.
On February 13, 2023, Above.com Pty Ltd. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <enterprisecarsaless.com> domain name is registered with Above.com Pty Ltd. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Above.com Pty Ltd. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Above.com Pty Ltd. 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 February 20, 2023, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 13, 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@enterprisecarsaless.com. Also on February 20, 2023, 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 March 19, 2023, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Sandra J. Franklin 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
1. Respondent’s <enterprisecarsaless.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ENTERPRISE CAR SALES mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <enterprisecarsaless.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and uses the <enterprisecarsaless.com> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent did not file a Response.
Complainant, Enterprise Holdings, Inc., holds a registration for the ENTERPRISE CAR SALES mark through its registration of the mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (Reg. No. 4,061,596 registered November 22, 2011).
Respondent registered the <enterprisecarsaless.com> domain name on October 4, 2022, and use it to 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."
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 Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in the ENTERPRISE CAR SALES mark based on the registration of the mark with the USPTO. See DIRECTV, LLC v. The Pearline Group, FA 1818749 (Forum Dec. 30, 2018) (“Complainant’s ownership of a USPTO registration for DIRECTV demonstrate its rights in such mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”).
Respondent’s <enterprisecarsaless.com> domain name uses the entire ENTERPRISE CAR SALES mark and merely adds and extra “s” and the “.com” gTLD. The addition of a gTLD and an extra letter fails to sufficiently distinguish a disputed domain name from a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Ancestry.com Operations Inc. v. Nadeem Qadir a/k/a NA Seocho c/o NA a/k/a Bladimir Boyiko a/k/a Free Domains Parking c/o Andrey Vasiliev, FA 1327838 (Forum July 13, 2010) (finding the respondent’s <familytreemakers.com> domain name confusingly similar to the complainant’s FAMILY TREE MAKER trademark because the addition of the letter “s” was insufficient to distinguish the domain name from the mark); see also Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. v. Antigua Domains, FA 1073020 (Forum Oct. 17, 2007) (“[T]he inclusion of the generic top-level domain ‘.com’ is inconsequential to the Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis, as a top-level domain is required of all domain names.”). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent’s <enterprisecarsaless.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ENTERPRISE CAR SALES mark.
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Once Complainant makes a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Advanced International Marketing Corporation v. AA-1 Corp, FA 780200 (Forum Nov. 2, 2011) (finding that a complainant must offer some evidence to make its prima facie case and satisfy Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)); see also Neal & Massey Holdings Limited v. Gregory Ricks, FA 1549327 (Forum Apr. 12, 2014) (“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”).
Complainant contends that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the <enterprisecarsaless.com> domain name since Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and Complainant has not authorized or licensed to Respondent any rights in the ENTERPRISE CAR SALES mark. The WHOIS information for the disputed domain name initially listed a privacy service as the registrant but now lists “Host Master / Transure Enterprise Ltd”. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, and thus has no rights under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Coppertown Drive-Thru Sys., LLC v. Snowden, FA 715089 (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); see also Deutsche Lufthansa AG v. Mohamed elkassaby, FA 1801815 (Forum Sep. 17, 2018) (“The WHOIS lists “Mohamed elkassaby” as registrant of record. Coupled with Complainant’s unrebutted assertions as to absence of any affiliation between the parties, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name in accordance with Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).”).
Complainant argues that Respondent fails to use the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use as the disputed domain name resolves to a page displaying links related to the goods and services associated with Complainant. Using a disputed domain name to redirect users to competing services is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See McGuireWoods LLP v. Mykhailo Loginov / Loginov Enterprises d.o.o, FA1412001594837 (Forum Jan. 22, 2015) (“The Panel finds Respondent’s use of the disputed domain names to feature parked hyperlinks containing links in competition with Complainant’s legal services is not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), and it is not a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”). Complainant provides evidence showing that the disputed domain name resolves to a page displaying pay-per-click third party links. The Panel finds that this is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, and thus Respondent has no rights under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii).
Complainant also argues that Respondent has engaged in typosquatting and thus demonstrated its lack of rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Panel agrees, noting that the <enterprisecarsaless.com> domain name merely adds the letter “s” to the ENTERPRISE CAR SALES mark, and finds that this is further evidence that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii). See Chegg Inc. v. yang qijin, FA1503001610050 (Forum Apr. 23, 2015) (“Users might mistakenly reach Respondent’s resolving website by misspelling Complainant’s mark. Taking advantage of Internet users’ typographical errors, known as typosquatting, demonstrates a respondent’s lack of rights or legitimate interests under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).”)
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Complainant argues that Respondent’s typosquatting also demonstrates bad faith registration and use. The Panel agrees and finds bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Gap Inc. and its subsidiary, Old Navy (Apparel), LLC v. Jiri Capcuch, FA1405001562139 (Forum July 2, 2014) (“Respondent adds an additional letter ‘v’ to Complainant’s OLD NAVY mark in the <oldnavvy.com> domain name, a classic example of typosquatting. Respondent’s typosquatting is, in itself, evidence of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).”).
Complainant also argues that Respondent registered and uses the <enterprisecarsaless.com> domain name in bad faith because Respondent has been involved in 32 adverse UDRP proceedings. The Panel finds that this demonstrates a pattern of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii). See Webster Financial Corporation and Webster Bank, National Association v. Above.com Domain Privacy, FA1209001464477 (Forum Nov. 30, 2012) (finding where the record reflected that the respondent had been a respondent in other UDRP proceedings in which it was ordered to transfer disputed domain names to various complainants established a pattern of bad faith registration and use of domain names and stood as evidence of bad faith in the registration and use of domain names under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii)).
Complainant claims that Respondent’s bad faith is further shown by its use of the disputed domain name to attract Internet users to its competing website for commercial gain. Using a disputed domain name to redirect consumers to competing goods or services evinces bad faith attempt to attract users for commercial gain under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Staples, Inc. and Staples the Office Superstores, LLC v. HANNA EL HIN / DTAPLES.COM, FA1404001557007 (Forum June 6, 2014) (“Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the <dtaples.com> domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) because the Respondent is using the disputed domain name to host third-party links to Complainant’s competitors from which Respondent is presumed to obtain some commercial benefit.”). Therefore, the Panel finds that bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).
Complainant contends that Respondent registered the <enterprisecarsaless.com> domain name with knowledge of Complainant's rights in the ENTERPRISE CAR SALES mark, citing the notoriety of Complainant’s mark. The Panel agrees, noting Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to compete with Complainant, and finds that this also evinces bad faith under 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 "actual knowledge of Complainant's mark when registering the disputed domain name").
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <enterprisecarsaless.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Sandra J. Franklin, Panelist
Dated: March 20, 2023
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page