DECISION

Enterprise Rent-A-Car Company v. Domain Active Pty., Ltd.

Claim Number:  FA0408000311295

PARTIES

Complainant is Enterprise Rent-A-Car Company (“Complainant”), represented by Caroline G. Chicoine, of Thompson Coburn LLP, One US Bank Plaza, St. Louis, MO 63101.  Respondent is Domain Active Pty., Ltd. (“Respondent”), P.O. Box 262, Clayfield, QLD 4011 Australia.

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <enterpriserentcars.com>, registered with Fabulous.com Pty Ltd.

PANEL

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.

The Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.) as Panelist.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the "Forum") electronically on August 11, 2004; the Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on August 16, 2004.

On August 13, 2004, Fabulous.com Pty Ltd. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain name <enterpriserentcars.com> is registered with Fabulous.com Pty Ltd. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Fabulous.com Pty Ltd. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Fabulous.com Pty Ltd. 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 19, 2004, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of September 8, 2004 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@enterpriserentcars.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 17, 2004, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed the Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (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.

RELIEF SOUGHT

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

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A.  Complainant makes the following assertions:

1. Respondent’s <enterpriserentcars.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ENTERPRISE mark.

2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <enterpriserentcars.com> domain name.

3. Respondent registered and used the <enterpriserentcars.com> domain name in bad faith.

B.  Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

FINDINGS

Complainant, Enterprise Rent-A-Car Company, was founded in 1957 under its predecessor, Executive Leasing Company.  In 1969, Executive Leasing Company changed its name to Enterprise.  Complainant is now the largest rental car company in North America, with more than 5,400 offices and 54,000 employees in the U.S., Canada, the U.K., Germany and Ireland. 

Complainant has established a well-known family of ENTERPRISE marks through registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (Reg. No. 2,597,724, issued July 23, 2002, Reg. No. 2,532,725, issued January 22, 2002, Reg. No. 2,371,192, issued July 25, 2000, Reg. No. 2,010,245, issued October 22, 1996, Reg. No. 2,010,244, issued October 22, 1996, Reg. No. 2,628,133, issued October 1, 2002, Reg. No. 2,213,035, issued December 22, 1998, Reg. No. 2,424,137, issued January 23, 2001, Reg. No. 2,458,529, issued June 5, 2001, Reg. No. 2,087,854, issued August 12, 1997, Reg. No. 2,086,463, issued August 5, 1997, Reg. No. 2,084,844, issued July 29, 1997, Reg. No. 2,052,192, issued April 15, 1997, Reg. No. 1,948,828, issued January 16, 1996, Reg. No. 2,190,147, issued September 22, 1998 and Reg. No. 1,34,167, issued June 18, 1985).  Complainant has consistently exercised its rights in the ENTERPRISE mark through use of the mark in commerce in connection with its car rental services for the past thirty-five years. 

Respondent registered the <enterpriserentcars.com> domain name on June 7, 2004.  Respondent is using the disputed domain name to direct Internet users to a search engine providing links to other websites offering car rental services.  Respondent has a history of engaging in registering at least eighty (80) domain names incorporating well-known trademarks belonging to third parties. 

DISCUSSION

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.

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

Complainant has established that it has rights in the ENTERPRISE family of marks through registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office and through continued use of its marks in commerce for the last thirty-five years.  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 Janus Int’l Holding Co. v. Rademacher, D2002-0201 (WIPO Mar. 5, 2002) (finding that Panel decisions have held that registration of a mark is prima facie evidence of validity, which creates a rebuttable presumption that the mark is inherently distinctive.  Respondent has the burden of refuting this assumption).

Respondent’s domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ENTERPRISE mark because the domain name incorporates Complainant’s mark with the addition of the generic or descriptive words “rent” and “cars,” which describe Complainant’s car rental business.  The mere addition of a generic or descriptive term that describes Complainant’s business does not negate the confusingly similarity of Respondent’s domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).  See Space Imaging LLC v. Brownell, AF-0298 (eResolution Sept. 22, 2000) (finding confusing similarity where Respondent’s domain name combines Complainant’s mark with a generic term that has an obvious relationship to Complainant’s business); see also Brown & Bigelow, Inc. v. Rodela, FA 96466 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 5, 2001) (finding that the <hoylecasino.net> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s HOYLE mark, and that the addition of “casino,” a generic word describing the type of business in which Complainant is engaged, does not take the disputed domain name out of the realm of confusing similarity); see also Marriott Int’l, Inc. v. Café au lait, FA 93670, (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 13, 2000) (finding that Respondent’s domain name <marriott-hotel.com> is confusingly similar to Complainant’s MARRIOTT mark); see also Parfums Christian Dior v. 1 Netpower, Inc., D2000-0022 (WIPO Mar. 3, 2000) (finding that four domain names that added the descriptive words "fashion" or "cosmetics" after the trademark were confusingly similar to the trademark).

The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name.  Due to Respondent’s failure to respond to the Complaint, it is assumed that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.  The burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests once Complainant establishes a prima facie case pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).  See G.D. Searle v. Martin Mktg., FA 118277 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 1, 2002) (holding that where Complainant has asserted that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the domain name it is incumbent on Respondent to come forward with concrete evidence rebutting this assertion because this information is “uniquely within the knowledge and control of the respondent”); see also Clerical Med. Inv. Group Ltd. v. Clericalmedical.com, D2000-1228 (WIPO Nov. 28, 2000) (finding that under certain circumstances the mere assertion by Complainant that Respondent has no right or legitimate interest is sufficient to shift the burden of proof to Respondent to demonstrate that such a right or legitimate interest does exist).

Moreover, the Panel may accept all reasonable allegations and inferences in the Complaint as true because Respondent has not submitted a Response.  See Clerical Med. Inv. Group Ltd. v. Clericalmedical.com, D2000-1228 (WIPO Nov. 28, 2000) (finding that under certain circumstances the mere assertion by Complainant that Respondent has no right or legitimate interest is sufficient to shift the burden of proof to Respondent to demonstrate that such a right or legitimate interest does exist); see also Vertical Solutions Mgmt., Inc. v. webnet-marketing, inc., FA 95095 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 31, 2000) (holding that Respondent’s failure to respond allows all reasonable inferences of fact in the allegations of Complainant to be deemed true).

Respondent is using the <enterpriserentcars.com> domain name to redirect Internet users to a website that offers links to other websites offering car rental services similar to those offered by Complainant.  Respondent’s use of a domain name confusingly similar to Complainant’s ENTERPRISE family of marks to redirect Internet users interested in Complainant’s services to a website offering similar car rental services is not a use in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).  See Bank of America Corp. v. Out Island Props., Inc., FA 154531 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 3, 2003) (finding that Respondent’s use of infringing domain names to direct Internet traffic to a search engine website that hosted pop-up advertisements was evidence that it lacked rights or legitimate interests in the domain name); see also Geoffrey, Inc. v. Toyrus.com, FA 150406 (Nat. Arb. Forum April 5, 2003) (holding that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name, a simple misspelling of Complainant’s mark, to divert Internet users to a website that featured pop-up advertisements and an Internet directory, was neither a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name); see also FAO Schwarz v. Zuccarini, FA 95828 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 1, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests in the domain names <faoscwartz.com>, <foaschwartz.com>, <faoshwartz.com>, and <faoswartz.com> where Respondent was using these domain names to link to an advertising website).

Moreover, Respondent did not offer any evidence and there is no proof in the record to suggest that Respondent is commonly known by the <enterpriserentcars.com> domain name.  Thus, Respondent has not established rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).  See 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); see also Broadcom Corp. v. Intellifone Corp., FA 96356 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 5, 2001) (finding no rights or legitimate interests because Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name or using the domain name in connection with a legitimate or fair use).

The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Respondent registered the domain name for commercial gain.  Respondent’s domain name diverts Internet users wishing to search under Complainant’s ENTERPRISE family of marks to Respondent’s commercial website through the use of a domain name confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark.  Respondent’s practice of diversion, motivated by commercial gain, through the use of a confusingly similar domain name evidences bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).  See Perot Sys. Corp. v. Perot.net, FA 95312 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 29, 2000) (finding bad faith where the domain name in question is obviously connected with Complainant’s well-known marks, thus creating a likelihood of confusion strictly for commercial gain); see also dentigene, Inc. v. Genetest Lab., D2000-1100 (WIPO Nov. 30, 2000) (finding bad faith where Respondent's use of the domain name at issue to resolve to a website where similar services are offered to Internet users is likely to confuse the user into believing that Complainant is the source of or is sponsoring the services offered at the site); see also eBay, Inc v. Progressive Life Awareness Network, D2000-0068 (WIPO Mar. 16, 2001) (finding bad faith where Respondent is taking advantage of the recognition that eBay has created for its mark and therefore profiting by diverting users seeking the eBay website to Respondent’s site).

Additionally, Respondent has a history of engaging in cybersquatting, registering at least eighty domain names incorporating well-known trademarks of others.  The Panel finds Respondent’s history and pattern of registering infringing trademarked domain names evidences bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii).  See Calvin Klein, Inc. v. Spanno Indus., FA 95283 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 21, 2000) (finding that Respondent has registered numerous domain names containing sexual references and domain names which are confusingly similar to third party trademarks; which points to a pattern of conduct on the part of Respondent, revealing that Respondent is registering domain names in order to prevent trademark owners from reflecting their marks in corresponding domain names); see also Philip Morris Inc. v. r9.net, D2003-0004 (WIPO Feb. 28, 2003) (finding that Respondent’s previous registration of domain names such as <pillsbury.net>, <schlitz.net>, <biltmore.net> and <honeywell.net> and subsequent registration of the disputed <Marlboro.com> domain name evidenced bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii)); see also Gamesville.com, Inc. v. Zuccarini, FA 95294 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 30, 2000) (finding that Respondent engaged in a pattern of conduct of registering domain names to prevent the owner of the trademark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, which is evidence of registration and use in bad faith); see also Australian Stock Exch. v. Cmty. Internet (Australia), D2000-1384 (WIPO Nov. 30, 2000) (finding bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii) where Respondent registered multiple infringing domain names containing the trademarks or service marks of other widely known Australian businesses).

The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) has been satisfied.

DECISION

Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <enterpriserentcars.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

The Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.), Panelist

Dated:  September 29, 2004

---

WorldLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.worldlii.org/int/other/GENDND/2004/1041.html