Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions

The Complainant is Columbia ParCar Corp., Reedsburg, , WI, USA ("Complainant") represented by Dana Roberts. The Respondent is Ace Golf Cars, Indian Wells, CA, USA ("Respondent").

The domain name at issue is parcar.net registered with Network Solutions.

The Panelist 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 the panelist in this proceeding.

Judge Harold Kalina (Ret.) as Panelist.

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum ("the Forum") electronically on September 25, 2000; The Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on September 22, 2000.

On September 27, 2000, Network Solutions confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain name parcar.net is registered with Network Solutions and that the Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Network Solutions has verified that Respondent is bound by the Network Solutions 5.0 registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain-name disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s UDRP.

On October 3, 2000, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of October 23, 2000 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@parcar.net 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 October 31, 2000, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a One 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 Uniform 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 the Respondent.

The Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from the Respondent to the Complainant.

Complainant contends:

B. Respondent

The Respondent has not provided any submissions to this Panel. As the Respondent has failed to submit a response to the Complaint, the Panel accepts as true all of the allegations of the Complaint. See Talk City, Inc. v. Robertson, D2000-0009 (WIPO February 29, 2000).

Complainant is a manufacturer and distributor of motorized golf vehicles. On August 17, 1988, the Complainant registered the trademark "parcar" with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, for use in relation to motorized golf cars. The Complainant started using this mark on its motorized golf vehicles in 1986.

The Respondent appears to be one of three closely related entities owned by Robert Dennis Enriquez. They do not appear to be separate corporations, but rather, Mr. Enriquez does business under each of these names. The other two companies are Ace Designs and Ace Concepts.

The registered owner of <parcar.net> from January 9, 2000 through May 20, 2000 was Ace Designs. On May 20, 1999, Ace Golf Cars became the registered owner of the <parcar.net> domain name. In viewing the websites of the Ace companies, it appears that they are in the business of registering domain names for clients and assisting them with e-commerce and web technology needs. The Respondent has registered at least 61 domain names, including <parcar.net>, for the sole purpose of resale. The domain names include trademarks of other nationally known golf car manufacturers, including EZGo and Club Car. Each of these domain names, including the domain name in question, is for sale. The price for the <parcar.net> domain name is listed as $2,500. The Respondent uses these domain names to funnel Internet traffic to its own website by exploiting Internet users’ association of the various trademarks of the golf car manufacturers.

Neither Mr. Enriquez, nor any of the Ace companies are now nor have they ever been an authorized customer, dealer or distributor of Columbia ParCar Corp., nor have they ever been in the business of the manufacture or sale of golf cars.

The Respondent had also registered the domain name <columbiaparcar.net>. The Complainant notified the Respondent that both the <columbiaparcar.net> and <parcar.net> domain names incorporated the Complainant’s trademarks. The Respondent relinquished ownership of the <columbiaparcar.net> domain name after receiving such notice, but has not relinquished the <parcar.net> domain name.

Paragraph 4(a) of the ICANN Uniform Domain Name Dispute Policy ("Policy") requires that the 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 the Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;

(2) the 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.

The Panel finds the <parcar.net> domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark PARCAR and that the Complainant has established it has rights in the name PARCAR pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. See Sulzer Vasutek Ltd. v. Adam Power/Mantis Surgical Ltd., AF 271 (eResolution Sept. 28, 2000) (finding that the domain names <vasutek.com>, <vasutek.net>, and <vasutek.org> are identical to the Complainant's trademark VASCUTEK).

The Respondent has not denied the Complainant’s assertions that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name.

There is no evidence in the record that would indicate that Respondent has any rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name <parcar.net>. Merely registering the domain name is not sufficient to establish rights or legitimate interests for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. See N.C.P. Marketing Group, Inc. v. Entredomains, D2000-0387 (WIPO July 5, 2000).

Further, the Respondent has not asserted any rights under Policy paragraph 4(c). The Panel concludes that the Respondent cannot maintain any rights under Policy paragraph 4(c). The Panel finds that the Respondent is not commonly known by the PARCAR term contained in the domain name. Policy paragraph 4(c)(ii). The Respondent registered the domain name in order to offer it for sale for prices in excess of out of pocket expenses. Given the commercial use of the domain name, the Respondent cannot claim to be using the domain name in connection with a noncommercial undertaking. Policy paragraph(c)(iii). In addition, offering generic domain names for sale for exorbitant prices is a bona fide offering of goods and services; however, offering domain names, which infringe upon others’ famous and registered marks, for sale is not a bona fide commercial endeavor. Policy paragraph 4(c)(i). See CBS Broadcasting Inc. v. Worldwide Webs, Inc., D2000-0834 (WIPO Sept. 4, 2000) ("There is nothing inherently wrongful in the offer or sale of domain names, without more, such as to justify a finding of bad faith under the Policy. However, the fact that domain name registrants may legitimately and in good faith sell domain names does not imply a right in such registrants to sell domain names that are identical or confusingly similar to trademarks or service marks of others without their consent.").

The Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name <parcar.net>, pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

The Respondent has not denied the Complainant’s assertions that the domain name was registered and used in bad faith.

The Respondent has acquired over 60 domain names, which infringe upon others’ marks, for the purpose of reselling them. Registering a domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that there is a pattern of conduct, is evidence of bad faith registration and use. Policy paragraph 4(b)(ii). See Budget Rent a Car Corporation v. Cupcake City, D2000-1020 (WIPO Oct. 19, 2000) (finding a pattern of conduct in registering domain names that infringe upon others’ marks where the Respondent has registered over 1,300 domain names). The Panel concludes that registering over 60 domain names that infringe upon others’ marks is evidence of bad faith registration and use based on Policy paragraph 4(b)(ii).

The Panel concludes that the Respondent also acted in bad faith based on Policy paragraph 4(b)(i). Offering to sell a domain name for consideration in excess of out of pocket expenses is evidence of bad faith registration and use. Policy paragraph 4(b)(i). See World Wrestling Fed. Entertainment, Inc. v. Bosman, D0099-0001 (WIPO Jan. 14, 2000) (finding that Respondent used the domain name in bad faith because he offered to sell the domain name for valuable consideration in excess of any out of pocket costs).

In light of the above argument, the Panel concludes that the Respondent has violated ICAAN Policy paragraph 4(a)(iii).

Having established all three elements required by the ICANN Policy Rule 4(a), it is the decision of the panel that the requested relief be granted.

Accordingly, for all of the foregoing reasons, it is ordered that the domain name, "PARCAR.NET", be transferred from the Respondent to the Complainant.