Enterprise Rent-A-Car Loses Domain Dispute for Enterprize.com

In the case of Enterprise Rent-A-Car Company v. Private WHOIS c/o Privacy Protection, the Panel found that because the Respondent had rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name enterprize.com, Complainant's claim was denied.

The Panel first noted that Complainant had established rights in the ENTERPRISE mark through registration of the mark with the USPTO (Reg. No. 1,343,167 issued June 18, 1985). Respondent’s enterprize.com domain name was therefore deemed confusingly similar to Complainant’s ENTERPRISE mark because Respondent’s domain name simply misspelled Complainant’s mark, using a “z” instead of a “s,” a common mistake made by Internet users attempting to enter Complainant’s enterprise.com domain name into their web browser. Indeed, the two words were phonetically equivalent. Accordingly, the Panel held that the misspelling did not sufficiently alter the mark to negate the confusingly similar aspects of Respondent’s domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

The Complainant alleged Respondent was using the enterprize.com domain name to redirect Internet users to Respondent’s website displaying links to competing goods and services. Respondent’s use of the domain name to display links to Complainant’s competitors was deemed not to be a use in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). However, the Panel noted that Respondent need not have a bona fide use if Respondent was commonly known by the domain name (Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)). The Panel noted that while it took some leap to decide EEM means Enterprise Event Management, the Panel was willing to make that leap. While the Panel understood how Complainant could not have figured out Respondent’s proper name was “Enterprise Event Management,” the Panel accepted Respondent’s evidence on this point. For the same reasons, the Panel found there was no reverse domain hijacking in this case.

Tackling the question of whether the Respondent had registered and used the domain name in bad faith, the Panel found that because Respondent had registered and was using the enterprize.com domain name in order to redirect Internet users to Respondent’s website displaying links to Complainant’s competitors, such use constituted disruption and was evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). The Panel reached this conclusion based upon two unusual factors:

1. Respondent had failed to develop a web site for a decade. The Panel found it improbable that Respondent had a bona fide business reason to have a domain name for such a long period of time without exploiting it. Respondent had not given any explanation, much less a bona fide business reason.
2. Respondent concealed its WHOIS information. While the Panel conceded that there might be valid business reasons for doing so, Respondent did not advance any. It was therefore hard for the Panel to believe there was a valid business reason to keep the identity of a domain name owner secret.

Respondent was using the enterprize.com domain name to redirect Internet users who misspelled Complainant’s mark to its own website. The Panel noted that domain name owners are routinely compensated for allowing parking pages such as the one at Respondent’s site. The links on Respondent’s site clearly prove respondent is using the parking page to generate revenue (for example, one link read: http://searchportal.information.com/?epl=01480068UVsPWVALXVUMVV8GVhEDQRFGD00GG1QODBNGXVlGUg1qRA1LBBVcRBRcAxFnCAdaD2sKVg1RXg8GE0ZdWUZSDWpAG0hcWF9dD1tEAmcMAg5TB1ECVhNcFj5HVFZTCQBDQVERTGYXXUEMDVVWFlRQ&query=Car%20Rental). Hardly a clear click-through hyperlink. The Panel therefore found that Respondent’s use of the enterprize.com domain name constituted typosquatting, which was evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

Respondent was using the enterprize.com domain name to redirect Internet users to Respondent’s website displaying links to competing goods and services for the assumed profit of Respondent. The Panel noted that Internet users may become confused as to Complainant’s affiliation with the disputed domain name and corresponding website because Respondent’s domain name was confusingly similar to Complaint’s ENTERPRISE mark. Respondent was profiting from this confusion with its special parking page. Therefore, the Panel held that Respondent’s use of the enterprize.com domain name to display links to competing goods and services constituted bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).

However, having failed to establish all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concluded that relief be DENIED.