WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
D�lcom �zel Egitim Hizmetleri A.S. v. Selim Dogan
Case No.�D2006-0177
1. The Parties
The Complainant is D�lcom �zel Egitim Hizmetleri A.S., Istanbul, Turkey, represented by M.�C�neyt�Yatkin, Turkey.
The Respondent is Selim Dogan, Kampus�Konya, Turkey.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Dotster,�Inc.
3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the�“Center”) on February�9,�2006. On February�9,�2006, the Center transmitted by email to Dotster, Inc. a request for registrar verification in connection with the domain name at issue. On February�10,�2006, Dotster, Inc. transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details for the administrative, billing, and technical contact. The�Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the�“Policy”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the�“Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform 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 February�17,�2006. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph�5(a), the due date for Response was March�9,�2006. The Response was filed with the Center on March�10,�2006.
The Center appointed Dilek�Ustun as the Sole Panelist in this matter on March�28,�2006. 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.
4. Factual Background
The Complainant is a Turkish company specializing in educational services, namely providing conferences, classes, seminars, workshops, training and courses in foreign languages, career placement and advancement, preparation for taking technical, academic and career oriented examinations, etc.
The Complainant holds servicemark registrations for the terms DEULCOM and DEULCOM INTERNATIONAL since 1995 for educational services in Turkey. The�Complainant has also several foreign service mark registrations and an international registration.
The Complainant is the owner of the domain name . The Complainant has been using/holding the domain name since January�26,�1999.
The disputed domain name was registered by the Respondent on September�5,�2000.
5. Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
The domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights
The Complainant asserts that the Respondent’s domain name is identical to its registered service marks mentioned above. It has used the trademark DEULCOM and DEULCOM INTERNATIONAL in Turkey and other countries for many years and its service marks have acquired distinctiveness through use.
The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name
The Complainant states that the Respondent lacks any commercial establishment and/or commercial activities at all.
The Complainant asserts that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. In support of this allegation, the Complainant states that the Respondent is neither a licensee of the Complainant, nor has it obtained permission to use the Complainant’s servicemarks. The Complainant adds that the Respondent has never been known by this name.
The domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith
The Complainant states that the domain name was registered by the Respondent primarily for the purpose of selling it to the Complainant for an amount exceeding out-of-pocket expenses related to the registration and upkeep of the domain name.
The Complainant’s service mark has long been established in the market and is widely known. The Respondent has thus registered the domain name corresponding to a widely known service mark, thereby seeking to unduly profit from the goodwill flowing therefrom.
B. Respondent
The Respondent submitted his response to the Center on March�10,�2006, a day after the Response due date. However, the Panel has decided to consider this Response.
The Respondent asserts that he was not aware of the Complainant up to 2003 and the Complainant had no international trademark or service mark registration when the domain name was created.
