Domain lost in UDRP while parked at Internet Traffic

Complainant Enterprise Holdings, Inc. submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum on December 10, 2012 for the domain name

Enterprise Holdings, Inc. from St. Louis, MO, USA, is the owner of the ENTERPRISE mark which it began using at least as early as 1974 in connection with a vehicle rental business. Enterprise is the largest car rental provider to international travelers visiting North America. Enterprise Holdings official website is

Respondent DSTR Acquisition VII, LLC from Washington, USA failed to submit a Response in this proceeding and ultimately lost the domain name because the disputed domain name was used to resolve to a website which provides hyperlinks to car rental services, including Complainant’s websites and Complainant’s competitors. The domain name is parked at Internet Traffic:

entrprises.bizThe domain name was registered on March 27, 2002. Complainant waited for more than 10 years to file this complaint but did so when the domain started displaying rental car ads.

The complaint could have easily been
denied if it wasn’t for these ads. That is why I have been asking Internet Traffic to provide a more general parking template. This is one of the reasons I haven’t moved all my domains at Internet Traffic. They don’t offer a truly generic lander. If you choose the General category and the General Sub-category you end up with a lander that is mostly focused on business and financial terms. That is dangerous if there a financial related trademark that is similar to your generic domain name. Even if you check the box “specific keyword” you don’t get a general lander. This unpredictability is what I fear. The people at Internet Traffic are working on creating a category like this but it has been a few months since I asked them.

Panelist Darryl C. Wilson ordered that the domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant because:

  1. Complainant bases its rights on registrations of the ENTERPRISE mark, which Complainant uses in its business of automotive repairs and short-term rental/leasing of automobiles and trucks. Complainant further contends that Respondent’s <> domain name is confusingly similar to Respondent’s mark because it fully incorporates and misspells Complainant’s ENTERPRISE mark.  The Panel notes that in addition to the term “enterprises” the domain name features the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.biz.”
  2. The Panel finds that this evidence shows that Respondent is not commonly known by <> domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). Complainant claims that Respondent is using the disputed domain name to resolve to a website which provides hyperlinks to car rental services, including Complainant’s websites and Complainant’s competitors.  Complainant claims that when Internet users click any of the links on the resolving website, they are taken to another website which features more descriptive hyperlinks to both Complainant’s and Complainant’s competitors websites.  The Panel notes that both content pages of the <> domain name provided by Complainant illustrate that the domain name is being used to host an array of hyperlinks to related and competing business, including Complainant’s own website.  See Complainant’s Exhibit 5.  The Panel finds that the Respondent’s use of the domain name to profit through click-through hyperlinks is not a Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) bona fide offering, nor a Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) legitimate noncommercial or fair use.
  3. Complainant asserts that Respondent is using the disputed domain name to confuse Internet users into believing Complainant is affiliated or a sponsor of the disputed domain name.  Complainant claims that Respondent set up the disputed domain name to gain click-through profits whenever confused Internet users used the hyperlinks on the website.  Complainant argues that the confusing similarity between the domain name and Complainant’s mark (and Complainant’s registered domain names associated with the mark such) makes it clear that Respondent seeks to profit whenever Internet users mistakenly go to the <> domain name instead of Complainant’s <> domain name.  The Panel again notes that the content of the disputed domain name’s resolving websites is dominated by hyperlinks to websites controlled by both Complainant and Complainant’s competitors. The Panel finds that Respondent has registered and is using the <> domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).

About Konstantinos Zournas

I studied Computer Engineering and Computer Science in London, UK and I am now living in Athens, Greece. I went online in 1995, started coding in 1996 and began buying domain names and creating websites in 2000. I started the blog in 2012.

One comment

  1. Wow, that is a scary site if you are a domain owner, they had no outs on that one.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.