{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-101208",
    "time_of_filling": "2016-05-12 13:44:56",
    "domain_names": [
        "alamo.gift",
        "alamo.science",
        "alamo.help",
        "alamo.space",
        "alamo.ren"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "Lada Válková (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "Vanguard Trademark Holdings USA, LLC"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "Harness, Dickey & Pierce, PLC",
    "respondent": [
        "Huang Jia Lin c\/o Huang Jia Lin"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "The Complainant licences the trade mark registrations listed above to Alamo Rent A Car and other operating entities (\"Alamo\").  Alamo was started in 1974 and is an internationally recognized car rental brand throughout the United States, Canada, Mexico, the Caribbean, Latin America, Asia and the Pacific Rim.  It is also the largest car rental provider for international travellers visiting North America. Its main website is at www.alamo.com.  \r\n\r\nNothing is known about the Respondent, apart from the fact that it is based in China.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain names were registered on 16 March 2016.  They are being used to point to websites containing sponsored links to websites offering car rental services, including those of the Complainant and its competitors. \r\n",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "None that the Panel has been made aware of.",
    "no_response_filed": "Parties' Contentions\r\n\r\nComplainant\r\n\r\nProcedural Factors\r\n\r\nThe Complainant requests that the language of the proceedings be English and argues that the Respondent appears to be very familiar with the English language for the following reasons:  \r\n\r\n-\tthe disputed domain names resolve to websites exclusively in English;\r\n-\tall of the links on such websites are in English;\r\n-\tthe websites are directed to English speakers;\r\n-\t\"Alamo\" is an English word of Spanish derivation and has no meaning in Chinese; and\r\n-\tAlamo Rent A Car (targeted on such websites) is a US-based company.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant argues that, under the circumstances, requiring the Complainant to incur the cost of translation would be unduly onerous and unnecessary. \r\n\r\nIdentical or confusingly similar\r\n\r\nThe Complainant evidences the five United States trade mark rights listed in the \"Identification of Rights\" section above.  It also states that it has registered its ALAMO trade mark in many countries throughout the world, including in China (where the Respondent resides), where it owns the following trade mark rights:\r\n\r\nRegistration No. 769766 issued on 14 October 1994\r\nALAMO in International Class 39\r\n\r\nRegistration No. 8060720 issued on 14 May 2011\r\nALAMO in International Class 39\r\n\r\nHowever, the Complainant points out that the Policy does not require complainants to show registration in any particular country, as long as they can establish rights in one jurisdiction. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant argues that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered ALAMO trade mark because they fully incorporate and are identical to it, merely adding the generic Top Level Domains, \".gift,\" \".science,\" \".help,\" \".space,\" and \".ren\". \r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that the incorporation of a trade mark in its entirety into a domain name is sufficient to establish that the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a registered trade mark.  In addition, the Complainant argues that the addition of a generic Top Level Domain is insufficient to distinguish the disputed domain names from the Complainant’s ALAMO trade mark.  The Complainant stresses that its ALAMO trade mark registrations significantly pre-date the registration of the disputed domain names, sometimes by many years.  \r\n\r\nNo rights or legitimate interests\r\n\r\nThe Complainant supplies evidence that, on 29 March 2016, the disputed domain names were pointing to websites containing lists of \"Related Links\".  Such links consisted of links to websites offering car rental services, including those of the Complainant and its competitors. \r\n\r\nFor example, the list of \"Related Links\" on the website to which <alamo.gift> was pointing on 29 March 2016 included:\r\n\r\nCar Rental For Alamo Car Hire Miami Airport\r\nCheap Car Rental Companies\r\nAlamo Miami\r\nCar Rental at Lax\r\nAlamo Car Rental Coupon\r\nMiami Luxury Car Rental\r\nAlamo Drafthouse Cinema\r\nAlamo Orlando\r\nCar Rental \r\n\r\nThe Complainant also lists the links on the websites corresponding to the other four disputed domain names on 29 March 2016.\r\n\r\nIn light of the long-standing use and registration of the ALAMO trade mark by the Complainant, the Complainant asserts that the Respondent cannot have any legitimate rights in the disputed domain names in connection with websites that serve merely to drive internet traffic to websites offering car rental services, including those of the Complainant and its competitors. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant points out that the WHOIS records list \"Huang Jia Lin\" as the Name and \"Huang Jia Lin\" as the Organization for the Registrant of the disputed domain names.  The websites to which they are pointing give no indication that the Respondent is known as, operating a business as, or advertising as \"Alamo.\"  The Complainant underlines that previous panels have found that, in the absence of evidence submitted by the respondent, the WHOIS record is the sole piece of relevant evidence when determining what a respondent is commonly known as.  In this regard, the Complainant adds that there is nothing in the WHOIS records or the corresponding websites that would indicate that the Respondent is, or is commonly known as, \"Alamo.\" \r\n\r\nThe Complainant argues that these facts suggest that the Respondent is not known as or operating as \"Alamo,\" but instead is attempting to use the goodwill generated by the ALAMO trade mark to drive internet traffic to its websites through the use of confusingly similar domain names.  The Complainant has not authorized the Respondent to use its ALAMO trade mark in connection with car rental services or any other goods or services, or to apply for any domain name incorporating the ALAMO trade mark.\r\n\r\nIn addition, the Complainant argues that the Respondent is clearly not making any legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain names.  The Complainant asserts that any claim in that regard is easily dismissed because the corresponding websites are all of a generic type commonly used by domain name owners seeking to monetize their domain names through \"click-through\" fees. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant points out that an entity with legitimate plans for using a domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services would use an under construction page indicating the future use of the domain name.  Instead, the Respondent has registered domain names corresponding to the ALAMO trade mark and used them to gain click-through fees by using pay-per-click websites promoting services for which the ALAMO trade mark has been used for many years. \r\n\r\nIn the Complainant's opinion, it is clear that the Respondent is attempting to use the disputed domain names to drive internet traffic to the Respondent's websites when internet users are trying to reach the Alamo Rent A Car website.  As previously indicated, the Complainant’s licensee operates an online car rental website at www.alamo.com.  The Complainant argues that such use by the Respondent constitutes a lack of rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names under the Policy. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant underlines that, once it makes a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names, the burden shifts to the Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests. \r\n\r\nRegistered and used in bad faith\r\n\r\nThe Complainant argues that the Respondent’s registration of domain names that merely combine the Complainant’s ALAMO trade mark with a generic Top Level Domain to attempt to attract internet users to the Respondent’s websites evidences a clear intent to trade upon the goodwill associated with the Complainant’s ALAMO trade mark.  In the Complainant's opinion, the Respondent is deliberately using domain names that are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade mark to attract, for commercial gain, internet users to its websites, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trade mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of its websites and the services offered at such websites. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant points out that the disputed domain names are pointing to \"pay-per-click\" websites.  In the Complainant's opinion such websites contain online advertising that will provide someone, presumably the Respondent, with revenue from \"click-through\" fees from internet users.  Such business model based upon the use of infringing domain names to attract users to the Respondent’s websites is clear evidence that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain names in bad faith.\r\n \r\nThe Complainant asserts that the Respondent’s bad faith is also clearly evident from the fact that the websites to which the disputed domain names are pointing include links to the real Alamo Rent A Car website, and Alamo must pay a click through fee if such links are used.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant points out that the Respondent may claim ignorance regarding the use being made of the disputed domain names. However, the Complainant argues that, under the Policy, absent a showing of some good faith attempt (prior to receiving the complaint) to stop the inclusion of advertising or links which profit from trading on third-party trade marks, a domain name owner is deemed responsible for content appearing on the websites at the domain names they own. This is true even if the owner is not exercising direct control over such content, for example in the case of advertising links appearing on an \"automatically\" generated basis, such as may be the case here.  \r\n\r\nThe Complainant asserts that, based on the above, it is clear that the Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain names falls squarely under the Policy.\r\n\r\nRespondent\r\n\r\nThe Respondent did not respond to the Complaint.\r\n",
    "rights": "The Complainant has shown, to the satisfaction of the Panel, that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to a trade mark in which the Complainant has rights (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i)of the Policy). ",
    "no_rights_or_legitimate_interests": "The Complainant has shown, to the satisfaction of the Panel, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(ii)of the Policy). ",
    "bad_faith": "The Complainant has shown, to the satisfaction of the Panel, that the disputed domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii)of the Policy).",
    "procedural_factors": "As far as the language of the proceedings is concerned, Rule 11 states as follows:\r\n\r\n\"Unless otherwise agreed by the Parties, or specified otherwise in the Registration Agreement, the language of the administrative proceeding shall be the language of the Registration Agreement, subject to the authority of the Panel to determine otherwise, having regard to the circumstances of the administrative proceeding.\"\r\n\r\nThe Complainant has requested that the language of the proceedings should be English for the reasons listed in the Complaint, even though the language of the Registration Agreement may be Chinese.  The Panel finds that the Complainant has made convincing arguments, having regard to the circumstances of this case, and thus accepts that the proceedings may be in English.   \r\n\r\nThe Panel is satisfied that all procedural requirements under the Policy have been met and there is no other reason why it would be inappropriate to provide a decision.\r\n",
    "decision": "Accepted",
    "panelists": [
        "Jane Seager"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2016-06-22 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant has supplied evidence that it is the owner of the following trade mark rights in the United States:\r\n\r\nRegistration No. 1,097,722 issued on 25 July 1978\r\nALAMO in International Class 39 for \"automotive renting and leasing services\"\r\n\r\nRegistration No. 2,427,040 issued on 6 February 2001\r\nALAMO & Design in International Class 39 for \"automotive renting and leasing services\"\r\n\r\nRegistration No. 2,427,041 issued on 6 February 2001\r\nALAMO & Design in International Class 39 for \"automotive renting and leasing services\"\r\n\r\nRegistration No. 4,462,684 issued on 7 January 2014\r\nALAMO & Design in International Class 39 for \"reservation services for the rental and leasing of vehicles\"\r\n\r\nRegistration No. 4,462,683 issued on 7 January 2014\r\nALAMO in International Class 39 for \"reservation services for the rental and leasing of vehicles\"\r\n",
    "decision_domains": {
        "ALAMO.GIFT": "TRANSFERRED",
        "ALAMO.SCIENCE": "TRANSFERRED",
        "ALAMO.HELP": "TRANSFERRED",
        "ALAMO.SPACE": "TRANSFERRED",
        "ALAMO.REN": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}