WIPO Domain Name Decision D2018-2138 for skyskor.com
WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Sky International AG / Sky Plc v. Tornike Tvauri Case No. D2018-2138 1. The Parties
The Complainants are Sky International AG of Zurich, Switzerland, and Sky Plc of Middlesex, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (“United Kingdom”), represented by NSN Law Firm, Turkey.
The Respondent is Tornike Tvauri of Tbilisi, Georgia, self-represented. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with GoD, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on September 19, 2018. On September 19, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On September 20, 2018, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. In response to a notification by the Center on September 20, 2018, that the Complaint was administratively deficient, the Complainant filed an amended Complaint on September 24, 2018.
The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), 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 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on September 25, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was October 15, 2018. The Respondent submitted an email communication on October 2, 2018, and its Response on October 12, 2018.
The Center appointed Emre Kerim Yardimci as the sole panelist in this matter on October 30, 2018. 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 Complainants Sky Plc and Sky International AG that are part of the group of companies affiliated to SKY Group Companies. SKY Group Companies is one of the Europe’s leading entertainment group, with over 21 million customers.
The Complainants are providing broadcasting services under their SKY brand and SKY generated brands and own several trademark registrations for SKY including the following:
- Turkish Trademark Registration No. 2012/86399 for the trademark SKY registered October 12, 2012, in classes 9, 38 and 41;
- Turkish Trademark Registration No. 2012/86402 for the trademark SKY registered October 12, 2012, in classes 9, 38 and 41.
The disputed domain name was registered on November 1, 2016, in the name of the Respondent who is a physical person domiciled in Georgia.
The disputed domain name resolves to a website providing news and opinion on sports-related topics in Turkish. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainants assert that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainants’ trademark SKY and that the addition of the descriptive word “skor” (which means “score” in Turkish and is a sports term) reinforces the association between the disputed domain name and the Complainants’ trademark.
The Complainants consider that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, mainly because the Complainants have neither licensed nor otherwise authorized the Respondent to use their marks or to apply for or use any domain name incorporating the trademark SKY.
Finally, in addressing the question of registration and use of the disputed domain name in bad faith, the Complainants observe that the Respondent is well aware of the Complainants’ trademark considering that the Respondent is using a logo very similar to the Complainants’ logo and that the Respondent’s website clearly suggests that the website belongs to the Complainants or is an official affiliated dealer endorsed by the Complainants.
The fact that the website does not provide any information on the true identity of the domain name’s registrant provider clearly shows that the Respondent intentionally creates the impression that the products offered on the Respondent’s website are provided by the Complainants or at least an official dealer by misleading users on the source of the website and thereby attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the website. B. Respondent
The Respondent contends that:
- It holds a trademark registration for SKYSKOR in Turkey (with a registration number 20