ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Enterprise Holdings, Inc. v. Mohammad Hossein Taheri Case No. DIR2023-0013 1. The Parties The Complainant is Enterprise Holdings, Inc., United States of America ("United States"), represented Saba & Co. IP, Lebanon. The Respondent is Mohammad Hossein Taheri, Iran (Islamic Republic of). 2. The Domain Name and Registry The disputed domain name is registered with IRNIC. 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on November 21, 2023. On November 29, 2023, the Center transmitted by email to IRNIC a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On December 5, 2023, IRNIC transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the .ir Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy" or "irDRP"), the Rules for .ir Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules"), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for .ir Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Supplemental Rules"). In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on December 5, 2023. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was December 25, 2023. The Respondent did not submit any response. On January 2, 2024, the Center notified the Respondent's default. The Center appointed Edoardo Fano as the sole panelist in this matter on January 8, 2024. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7. The Panel has not received any requests from the Complainant or the Respondent regarding further submissions, waivers or extensions of deadlines, and the Panel has not found it necessary to request any further information from the Parties. page 2 Having reviewed the communication records in the case file provided by the Center, the Panel finds that the Center has discharged its responsibility under the Rules, paragraph 2(a), "to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to the Respondent". Therefore, the Panel shall issue its Decision based upon the Complaint, the Policy, the Rules and the Supplemental Rules and without the benefit of a response from the Respondent. The language of the proceeding is English, being the language of the Registration Agreement, as per paragraph 11(a) of the Rules. 4. Factual Background The Complainant is Enterprise Holdings, Inc., a United States company operating in the car rental field, and owning several trademark registrations worldwide for ENTERPRISE, among which, in the Respondent's country, the following ones: - International Trademark Registration No. 1160672 for ENTERPRISE, registered on March 7, 2013, also extended to Iran (Islamic Republic of); - International Trademark Registration No. 1146427 for ENTERPRISE and design, registered on November 15, 2012, also extended to Iran (Islamic Republic of). The Complainant also operates on the Internet, its main website being at "www.enterprise.com". The Complainant provided evidence in support of the above. According to the information received from the Registry, the disputed domain name was registered by the Respondent on February 8, 2022, and it does not resolve to an active website. On April 10, 2023, the Complainant's legal representatives sent a cease-and-desist letter to the Respondent, without receiving any reply. 5. Parties' Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant states that the disputed domain name is almost identical to its trademark ENTERPRISE, being a typosquatted version of the latter. Moreover, the Complainant asserts that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, since it has not been authorized by the Complainant to register the disputed domain name or to use its trademark within the disputed domain name, it is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, and it is not making either a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. The Complainant submits that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name in bad faith, since the Complainant's trademark ENTERPRISE is well known in the car rental field. Therefore, the Respondent targeted the Complainant's trademark at the time of registration of the disputed domain name and the Complainant contends that the passive holding of the disputed domain name qualifies as bad faith registration and use. page 3 B. Respondent The Respondent has made no reply to the Complainant's contentions and is in default. In reference to paragraphs 5(e) and 14 of the Rules, no exceptional circumstances explaining the default have been put forward or are apparent from the record. A respondent is not obliged to participate in a proceeding under the Policy, but if it fails to do so, reasonable facts asserted by a complainant may be taken as true, and appropriate inferences, in accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, may be drawn. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition ("WIPO Overview 3.0"), section 4.3.1 6. Discussion and Findings Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy lists three elements, which the Complainant must satisfy in order to succeed: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; (ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and (iii) the disputed domain name has been registered or is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Panel finds that the Complainant is the owner of the trademark ENTERPRISE both by registration and acquired reputation and that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark ENTERPRISE. Regarding the use of the term "entreprise" to replace the term "enterprise" of the Complainant's trademark, the Panel notes that this is a typical case of a deliberate misspelling of a mark (so-called "typosquatting"), by reversing the order of letters in a mark, where numerous UDRP panels in the past have found confusing similarity to be present. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.9. It is also well accepted that a country code Top-Level Domain suffix, in this case ".ir", is typically ignored when assessing the confusing similarity between a trademark and a domain name. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.11. The Panel finds that the Complainant has therefore met its burden of proving that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark, pursuant to the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i). B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy requires the Complainant to prove that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent may establish rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name by demonstrating in accordance with paragraph 4(c) of the Policy any of the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation: 1 In light of the substantive and procedural similarities between the irDRP and the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy ("UDRP"), the Panel has cited decisions under the UDRP and the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition ("WIPO Overview 3.0"), where appropriate. page 4 "(i) before any notice to you of the dispute, your use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or (ii) you (as an individual, business, or other organization) have been commonly known by the domain name, even if you have acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or (iii) you are making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue." According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant has the burden of proving the three elements of the Policy. However, satisfying the burden of proving a lack of the Respondent's rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name according to paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy is potentially quite difficult, since proving a negative circumstance is generally more complicated than establishing a positive one. As such, it is well accepted that it is sufficient for the Complainant to make a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name in order to shift the burden of production to the Respondent. If the Respondent fails to demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name in accordance with paragraph 4(c) of the Policy or on any other basis, the Complainant is deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. The Complainant in its Complaint, and as set out above, has established a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. It asserts that the Respondent, who is not currently associated with the Complainant in any way, is not using the disputed domain name for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use or in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. The prima facie case presented by the Complainant is enough to shift the burden of production to the Respondent to demonstrate that it has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. However, the Respondent has not presented any evidence of any rights or legitimate interests it may have in the disputed domain name. Moreover, the Panel finds that the composition of the disputed domain name (almost identical to the Complainant's trademark and domain name ) is likely to confuse users. Based on the facts of this case, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Panel therefore finds that paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy has been satisfied. C. Registered or Used in Bad Faith While paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy requires a demonstration that a domain name has either been registered or is being used in bad faith, the Complainant has argued that the Respondent has both registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith. Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy provides that "for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii), the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith: (i) circumstances indicating that [the respondent has] registered or has acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of the complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of its documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or page 5 (ii) that [the respondent has] registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that [the respondent has] engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or (iii) that [the respondent has] registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of the complainant; or (iv) that by using the domain name, [the respondent has] intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [the respondent's] website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of [the respondent's] website or location or of a product or service on [the respondent's] website or location". Regarding the registration in bad faith of the disputed domain name, the reputation of the Complainant's trademark ENTERPRISE in the car rental field is clearly established and the Panel finds that the Respondent must have known of the Complainant, and deliberately registered the disputed domain name in bad faith. Panels have found that the non-use of a domain name (including a blank or "coming soon" page) would not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding. Having reviewed the record, the Panel finds the non-use of the disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith in the circumstances of this proceeding. While panelists will look at the totality of the circumstances in each case, factors that have been considered relevant in applying the passive holding doctrine include: (i) the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the complainant's mark, (ii) the failure of the respondent to submit a response or to provide any evidence of actual or contemplated good-faith use, (iii) the respondent's concealing its identity or use of false contact details (noted to be in breach of its registration agreement), and (iv) the implausibility of any good faith use to which the domain name may be put. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.3. Having reviewed the record, the Panel notes the distinctiveness and reputation of the Complainant's trademark, the composition of the disputed domain name (almost identical to the Complainant's trademark and domain name ), and the failure of the Respondent to submit a response, and finds that in the circumstances of this case the passive holding of the disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith under the Policy. Furthermore, the Panel considers that the nature of the disputed domain name, which is almost identical to the Complainant's trademark and domain name , further supports a finding of bad faith. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.2.1. The Panel finds that the Complainant has presented evidence to satisfy its burden of proof with respect to the issue of whether the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. The Panel therefore finds that paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy has been satisfied. 7. Decision For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain name be transferred to the Complainant. /Edoardo Fano/ Edoardo Fano Sole Panelist Date: January 11, 2024
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy