The Complainant is KOC HOLDING A.S of Istanbul, Turkey, represented by Istanbul Patent & Trademark Consultancy Ltd., Turkey.
The Respondent is Koc Egitim, Medyaportakal.Com Web Design, Hosting, Interactive Media of Istanbul, Turkey. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with OnlineNic, Inc. d/b/a China-C. 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on June 29, 2011. On June 29, 2011, the Center transmitted by email to OnlineNic, Inc. d/b/a China-C a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On June 30, 2011, OnlineNic, Inc. d/b/a China-C transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. In response to a notification by the Center that the Complaint was administratively deficient, the Complainant filed an amendment to the Complaint on July 5, 2011.
The Center verified that the Complaint, together with the amendment to the Complaint/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(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on July 5, 2011. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was July 25, 2011. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on July 28, 2011.
On August 3, 2011, the Center notified the Parties and the Registrar that the disputed domain name was set to expire on August 18, 2011. On August 4, 2011, the Center stated in its email that “certain action is required by the parties to keep the domain name under registrar LOCK so that the administrative procedure can continue as required under the UDRP”. On August 5, 2011 the Center acknowledged the Parties on this matter and the Parties asked for assistance to renew the disputed domain name. On August 8, 2011, stating that the situation shall be considered as waive of right, the Complainant demanded assistance to renew the domain name to not to cause any lapse of right. On August 9, 2011, the Registrar confirmed that “the said domain name has been renewed for one year, it remains active, that it has been LOCKED and that it will remain so pending the outcome of the current proceedings.” Also the Registrar stated in its email to the Complainant that the renewal fee will be charged from the case winning party.
In the meantime, a supplemental filing was received from the Complainant on July 12, 2011, requesting to add an additional domain name to the case. In response the Center acknowledged receipt and stated the following:
“We note that the Rules do not explicitly provide for a Complaint to be amended, after the commencement of proceedings, to include additional domain names. Accordingly, it is for the Panel to determine whether it will accept the addition of new domain names to the Complaint.
The sequence of events is as follows: the Respondent’s Response should be filed with the Center by the deadline of July 25, 2011. Once the Panel has been appointed, any received Complainant request(s) to file an amendment or supplement to the Complaint with respect to the addition of new domain names will be drawn to the Panel’s attention. (If a requesting Complainant should wish to supplement such request to the Panel with additional reasons or explanation, it may naturally do so prior to Panel appointment, and the Center will draw these to the attention of the Panel for its consideration on appointment). If the Panel agrees to accept the amended or supplemental Complaint, it is possible that the Panel will also agree to give the Respondent additional time to respond to such Complaint. If the Complainant does not make such a request, or if the request is declined by the Panel, the Panel will typically proceed to issue its decision on the Complaint as it stands.”
On August 12, 2011, the Center has received a late response from the Respondent. On the same date, the Center acknowledged the receipt of that response and brought it to the Panel’s attention. On August 17, 2011, the Complainant filed an objection to the late submission of the Respondent. The Center transmitted brought this objection to the Panel’s attention.
The Center appointed Selma Ünlü as the sole panelist in this matter on August 10, 2011. 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. Procedural Issues
Firstly, it is convenient to deal with the procedural issues in this case such as to what extend the late Response and the Complainant’s supplemental filing for a further domain name should be taken into account. Procedural Issue- Late Response
The Respondent transmitted by email to the Center its response and annexes related on August 12, 2011, more than 2 weeks after the time limit and over one month later they had received the Center’s notification of Complaint and Commencement of Proceeding. In this email, the Respondent stated that they were late due to their intensive business period and gave a brief explanation about their response. Further to the late Response of the Respondent, the Complainant filed an objection to the submission of the Respondent on August 17, 2011. The Panel finds that, submission of a late response cannot be accepted since the paragraph 5(d) of the Rules requires exceptional circumstances for the time extension.
The Panel is of the opinion that the Respondent could not give an exceptional reason for the late response. Therefore the Panel finds that the Respondent’s contention is not an exceptional case pursuant to paragraph 14 of the Rules and therefore, decided to refuse the Respondent’s late submissions. Procedural Issue- Reasons for declining to consider the Additional Domain Name
First of all, as it is understood from the case file, this application from the Complainant was received after registrar verification, notification of the Complaint to the Respondent, and commencement of the proceedings.
In accordance with the WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition (“the WIPO Overview 2.0”) which draws a distinction between the addition of domain names prior to the formal commencement of proceedings, and after notification of the Complaint to the Respondent states that “Any request for addition of domain names to a complaint only after it has been notified to the respondent and the proceeding has been formally commenced on that basis would normally need to be addressed by the panel (on appointment). Panels have in some cases been reluctant to grant such requests, where received only after appointment. Where panels grant such requests, they would typically order a partial recommencement of the procedure to allow a proper response opportunity in relation to the added domain names.”
From the annex submitted by the Complainant to the supplemental filing, it is understood that the added domain name was registered in August 2010, well before the main Complaint was filed within the Center. The issue of the addition of a disputed domain name after panel appointment was considered by the panel in Department of Management Services, State of Florida v. Digi Real Estate Foundation,WIPO Case No. D2007-0547. The panel in that case said:
”The decision of a Panel as to whether to allow the amendment of a Complaint to add further domain names must be made in accordance with paragraph 10 of the Policy. In particular the Panel must ensure that its decision respects the procedural rights of the Parties (paragraph 10(b)), and is compatible with the Panel’s obligation to ensure the administrative proceeding takes place with due expedition (paragraph 10(c)).”
At this point the Panel refers to FitFlop Limited v. Mike Wang,WIPO Case No. D2011-0571 and Department of Management Services, State of Florida v. Digi Real Estate Foundation, supra, which has the same procedural processing conditions of the present case and in which the panel refused the addition of a domain name.
In the referred case the panel, referring to Archipelago Holdings LLC v. Creative Genius Domain Sales and Robert Aragon d/b/a Creative Genius Domain Sales,WIPO Case No. D2001-0729 stated that:
“Respect for the Respondent’s procedural rights means that the addition of another domain name to the Complaint requires re-notification of the Respondent and a new period of twenty days to submit a Response in accordance with paragraph 5 of the Policy. For this reason the procedural economy of hearing two domain name disputes between the same parties together might be outweighed by the Panel’s obligation to determine the original dispute with due expedition.”.
The Archipelago Holdings decision recognizes that certain circumstances make the addition of a domain name more acceptable, including “if it were made shortly after the domain names were registered, especially if they were registered after the filing of the initial Complaint”. There is no such condition in this case.
Therefore, the Panel must reject the request for amendment even in these circumstances, because the parties should be treated with equality. Procedural equality means that each party must have the option of having the dispute determined by a three member panel (see paragraph 3(b)(iv), 5(b)(iv) and (v) and 5(c) of the Policy). However, if the amendment to the Complaint was now allowed, and a new domain name added, then the Respondent would have lost the right to have the dispute regarding the additional domain name determined by a three member Panel. (See FitFlop Limited v. Mike Wang, supra, and Department of Management Services, State of Florida v. Digi Real Estate Foundation, supra).
Moreover, the panel of the referred case Department of Management Services, State of Florida v. Digi Real Estate Foundation, supra, added that:
“This procedural problem cannot readily be solved by providing an opportunity for the Respondent to object to the addition of a new domain name on the basis that it wishes to exercise its right to a three member panel in respect of the added domain name, as such a course further complicates the procedure, and is likely to create additional delay. In this Panel’s view the course most consistent with paragraph 10 of the Policy, and the principles of the UDRP system, is generally not to permit the addition of new domain names to a Complaint after a single member panel has been appointed. This might appear hard to a complainant, as in the present case, not guilty of any omission, oversight or delay, but is an inherent limitation in the simplified dispute resolution system for domain names. It is, of course, open to the Complainant to bring a separate Complaint in respect of the additional domain name if it so desires.”
Considering the domain name which is tried to be added into the case was registered nearly one year before the filing of the Complaint and taken into consideration that adding a new domain name to the case in this stage will cause delay and break the equality between the parties, the panel finds that the complainant’s application to add further domain name should be refused. 4. Factual Background
The facts stated in the Complaint are as follows:
(1) The Complainant Koç Holding A.Ş. is Turkey’s leading industrial and service group in local and international markets in various areas such as automotive, energy, consumer durables and finance sector.
(2) Koç Ticaret A.Ş. was established in 1938 which developed the Koç Group and Koç Holding A.Ş. was founded in 1963.
(3) The Koç School founded in 1988 by the Vehbi Koç Foundation as a university preparatory school. In 1998 an elementary school added to Koç School which is fully accredited by the Turkish ministry of Education and has 2000+ students from kindergarten to 12th grade. In 1993 Koç University which is one of the leading universities in Turkey was founded as a non-profit private university in Istanbul.
(4) The Complainant registered its trade and service marks KOC numbered 99/021873, 2004/15189 and 2006/22509 respectively on December 15, 1999, May 25, 2004 and May 15, 2006.
(5) The Complainant has registered some other trademarks regarding education, namely KOC TOPLULUGU EGITIM VE GELISIM YONETIMI SISTEMI (KOCAKADEMI), KOC UNIVERSITY, KOC OZEL ILKOGRETIM OKULU VE LISESI THE KOC SCHOOL device and KOC UNIVERSITESI respectively on September 2, 2004, June 6, 2006, August 12, 2003 and June 2, 2006.
(6) The trade and service mark KOC numbered 003428513 and dated October 29, 2003 was registered as Community Trademark (CTM) before the Office of Harmonization in the Internal Market (OHIM).
(7) The Complainant’s trademarks KOC trademarks numbered 2004 15189 and 99 021873 were declared by TPI as well-known trademarks.
(8) The Complainant created the disputed domain name on February 9, 1996 and was created by Vehbi Koç Vakfi Özel İlköğretim Okulu ve Lisesi on July 29, 1999 and the domain name was created by Koc Üniversitesi on October 20, 2000.
(9) The disputed domain name was created on August 18, 2010 by the Respondent.
Panel’s observation of the case file (especially Annex 14 of the Complaint which is the printouts of the Respondent’s web page having the disputed domain name and Annex 15 of the Complaint which are the printouts of a web page having the following domain name which introduces KOC EGİTİM) reveals the following:
(1) “Koç Eğitim” phrase has been used for more than 20 years;
(2) Education at the foreign countries under the KoçAbroad mark is given;
(3) Education services via its Colleges named Koç Eğitim Kolejleri and Koç Eğitim Lisesi is given;
(4) There are 19 branches in Istanbul and Turkey for training Centers, 7 branches for kindergarten, 5 branches for primary school and 2 Colleges; and
(5) Under the Annex 15, is written which can only be taken by National Registrar ODTU if there was a legitimate right. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant requests the Panel to issue a decision transferring the disputed domain name to the Complainant on the following grounds:
(i) The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or a 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 is registered and is being used in bad faith (i) Identity or Confusingly Similarity
The Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is identical to the mark in which the Complainant has rights since the disputed domain name is a combination of three separate words KOC, EGITIM and KOLEJLERI. EGITIM means “education” and KOLEJLERI means “colleges” in Turkish. Also KOC is the trademark and company name of the Complainant.
The Complainant states that the disputed domain name wholly incorporates KOC and since KOC is so famous, it may constitute confusion in the minds of public and Internet users. Also the Complainant argues that using the generic terms “education” and “colleges” do not evaluate the confusion but contrary creates an association with the Complainant’s mark since the Complainant provides education services via its schools and university. At this point the Complainant refers to Guccio Gucci S.p.A. v. Zhou Guodong,WIPO Case No. D2010-1695 where the panel concluded that “the inclusion of prefixes and suffixes do not successfully distinguish the disputed domain names from the trade mark GUCCI.”
The Complainant also refers to the Turkcell Iletisim Hizmetleri A.S. v. Celile Gun,WIPO Case No. D2008-0128 where the panel is of the opinion that “The use of a generic term (i.e. “technology” or the translated version of the Complainant’s mark does not, by itself, remove the element of confusion similarity in the context of proceeding. Although the word “technology” on its own is a generic word, the use of the Complainant’s TURKCELL mark in combination therewith renders the disputed domain name confusingly similar to the Complainant’s TURKCELL and TURKCELLTEKNOLOJI marks.”
The Complainant further mentions the panel finding for Turkcell Iletisim Hizmetleri A.S. v. Cennet Iletisim Dis.Tic.Ltd.Sti,WIPO Case No. D2008-0756: “The disputed domain name is and the Complainant’s mark is TURKCELL. The disputed domain name incorporates the TURKCELL mark in its entirety. It also has the Turkish words “parca” and “kontor” meaning “peace” and “units” respectively. These words are descriptive and generic to the industry to which the Complainant belongs. (…) The Panel (…) finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark and the disputed domain name.” (ii) Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant alleges that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name since the Respondent is not a licensee of the Complainant and does not have the Complainant’s permission or authorization to use the trade and service marks of the Complainant that includes KOC. Thus, the Complainant alleges that the Respondent tries to create a connection to the Complainant and its trademark KOC.
The Complainant further alleges that the disputed domain name in question is not a name by which the Respondent is commonly known. Also the Complainant refers to the Compagnie de Saint Gobain v. Com- Union Corp.,WIPO Case No. D2000-0020 where the panel found no rights or legitimate interests where respondent was not commonly known by the mark or never applied for a licence or permission from the complainant to use the trademarked name.
Moreover, the Complainant argues that the Respondent was fully aware of the Complainant’s trademark KOC at the time of the registration of the disputed domain name. The Complainant KOC is a well-known trademark and company. The Respondent is a Turkish citizen and Turkey resident. It is not possible for him, not to be aware of the well-known Koç’s trademarks. Thus, the Complainant refers to Koc Holding A.Ş. v. KEEP B.T.,WIPO Case No. D2009-0938 for the domain name . In this case the panel concluded that “… as the Respondent in Turkey, considering the size of the Complainant’s business, it is unlikely that the Respondent was unaware that KOC was a famous mark at the time of the registering the disputed domain name.” (iii) Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Complainant argues that the Respondent cannot ignore the fact that Koc is a well-recognized company in Turkey and its trade and service marks are commonly known, alleging that the Respondent was aware of that mark when it registered the disputed domain name. Further, the Complainant alleges that the Respondent cannot use the registered domain name without infringing on the trademark owner’s rights and refers to Celluar One Group v. Brien,WIPO Case No. D2000-0028. In that case the panel found that “the Respondent’s registration of the domain name was necessarily in bad faith since the respondent knew about Cellular One’s mark and nevertheless registered a domain name that was entirely composed of that trademark and the country name China.” The panel found bad faith registration based on the fact that it would have been impossible for the respondent to use the domain name as the name of any business or service for which it would be commercially useful without violating the Complainant’s rights in its trademark.
The Complainant mentions Parfums Christian Dior S.A. v. Javier Garcia Quintas and C,WIPO Case No. D2000-0226 and states that the awareness at the time of the registration of the disputed domain name is to be considered an inference of bad faith.
Moreover, the Complainant refers to the Ferrari S.p.A. v. American Entertainment Group, Inc,WIPO Case No. D2004-0673 where the panel held that “ When it may be presumed that “the Respondent (…) knew of the renown of the Complainant’s trademarks”, a finding of “opportunistic bad faith” is in order.” B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions, but a late submission was filed by the Respondent on August 12, 2011. However as stated above it was not taken into consideration due to an exceptional situation has not submitted by the Respondent as the reasoning of the late response. 6. Discussion and Findings
According to paragraph 15(a) of the Rules, the Panel shall decide the Complaint in accordance with the Policy, the Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable and on the basis of the Complaint where no Response has been submitted.
In accordance with paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove that each of the three following elements is satisfied:
(i) The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark in which the Complainant has rights; and
(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 and is being used in bad faith.
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy states that the Complainant has the burden of proving that all these requirements are fulfilled. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The test for identical or confusing similarity under the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i) is limited in scope to a direct comparison between the Complainant’s trademark and the textual string which comprises the disputed domain name. In this case, the Complainant has demonstrated trademark rights in the marks contains “KOC” phrase.
The Complainant having proved relevant registered trademark rights and fame concerning the “KOC” phrase; the Panel evaluates this matter, by examining the similarity between the Complainant’s KOC trademarks and the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name contains the KOC trademark with the descriptive words “egitim” and “kolejleri”. The incorporates the whole of the KOC trademark. In various UDRP decisions the addition of generic or descriptive terms to a distinctive trademark name is to be considered confusingly similar to the registered trademark. See, i.e., Allstate Insurance Company v. Moniker Privacy Services / Pablo Palermao,WIPO Case No. D2011-0198, Sanofi-Aventis v. US-M,WIPO Case No. D2004-0809 and F. Hoffman La Roche AG v. Pinetree Development, Ltd.,WIPO Case No. D2006-0049. The Panel is of the opinion that the combination of “koc” with “egitim” and “kolejleri” does not remove the similarity between the phrases.
In similar cases; Sanofi-Aventis v. Gideon Kimbrell,WIPO Case No. D2010-1559, Turkcell Iletisim Hizmetleri A.S. v. Vural Kavak,WIPO Case No. D2010-0010, Greenbrier IA, Inc. v. Moniker Privacy Services/Jim Lyons,WIPO Case No. D2010-0017, Zodiac Marine & Pool, Avon Inflatables Ltd and Zodiac of North America Inc. v. Mr. Tim Green,WIPO Case No. D2010-0024 the panels have found that adding descriptive words does not remove the likelihood of confusion between a trademark and a domain name incorporating said trademark.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark KOC and marks contains “KOC” phrase thus, the first requirement under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy satisfied. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides that, a respondent may establish its rights or legitimate interests in the domain name, among other circumstances, by showing any of the following elements:
“(i) before any notice to you [the Respondent] 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 [theRespondent] (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 [the Respondent] are making a legitimate non commercial 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.”
The burden of proof lies on the Complainant who must demonstrate a prima facie case that the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Once the Complainant has made out a prima facie case, then the Respondent may, by, inter alia, showing one of the above elements, prove rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
The Panel finds that the Complainant has proved its earlier rights in the KOC trade and service marks and also the fame of KOC trademarks in Turkey. Also, the Complainant satisfactorily proved that it offered services under KOC before the creation of the disputed domain name. The Complainant has not granted the Respondent any right or license to use mentioned trade and service mark of KOC.
However, from the Annex 14 of the Complaint submitted by the Complainant which has the print outs of the web page at the disputed domain name, and Annex 15 of the Complaint submitted by the Complainant which is the print outs of the web page at the domain name and introducing KOÇ EĞİTİM, it is understood that the KOC EĞİTİM has been extensively used on educational services for more than 20 years. So, the evidence indicates that the disputed domain name is used in connection with an offering of services in commerce.
Although use in connection with the sale of goods or services is apparent, our inquiry must go further since not all such use qualifies as bona fide use. "To conclude otherwise would mean that a Respondent could rely on intentional infringement to demonstrate a legitimate interest, an interpretation that is obviously contrary to the intent of the Policy." Madonna Ciccone, p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi and "M,WIPO Case No. D2000-0847. Here, it is not proved that the Respondent adopted KOC EGITIM KOLEJLERI to specifically target or as a deliberate infringement of Complainant's rights. Rather, the Respondents selections appear to this Panel to have been based on a long period of prior use of KOC on education services.
Besides, from the Annex 15 of the Complaint it is understood that KOÇ EĞİTİM has a domain name taken from National Registrar ODTÜ upon the submission of a document showing that the main element of the domain name is a trade name, trademark or trademark application of the applicant. So, the Panel evaluates that the KOÇ EĞİTİM has a trade name, trademark or trademark application which may also show legitimate right.
In the light of foregoing and balancing the available evidence, the Panel evaluates that the Complainant cannot duly prove that the Respondent does not have a right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name.
The Panel is of the view that the Complainant has not proved that the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interest in the domain name, being the elements in paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. Accordingly, as the ultimate onus of proof being on the Complainant, the Panel finds the Complaint has not been proved. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy enumerates four, non-exclusive, circumstances that, 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 disputed domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the disputed 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 the Respondent’s documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the disputed domain name; or
(ii) the Respondent has registered the disputed 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) The Respondent has registered the disputed domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
(iv) by using the disputed domain name, the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its web site 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 web site or location or of a product or service on the Respondent’s web site or location.
The Complainant contends that the Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith. In its Complaint, the Complainant makes allegations of several specific acts by the Respondent that are indicative of bad faith use and registration. These contentions, however, are unsupported by the evidence. In fact, the record is devoid of any proof that by acquiring the disputed domain name the Respondent intended to confuse or deceive consumers in any manner. Specifically, the evidence does not show any circumstances where the Respondent registered or acquired the disputed domain name for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the disputed domain name registration to the Complainant or a competitor. There was no evidence presented that the Respondent engages in a pattern of conduct to prevent others from using registered marks as domain names. Finally, no evidence was presented that shows the Respondent procured the disputed domain name to disrupt the business of the Complainant or another competitor. See the American Eyewear, Inc. v. Thralow, Inc.,WIPO Case No. D2001-0991.
What is seen by the Panel from the documents submitted by the Complainant and is the case file (especially the printouts of the web page at the disputed domain name) that "KOC EGITIM" has been used for education services for more than 20 years having 19 branches for training Centers, 7 branches for kindergarten, 5 branches for primary school and 2 college in Istanbul and Turkey. It sought to select a domain name that was a natural extension of its established business name.
The Panel finds the present record is devoid of any proof of bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name on the part of Respondent, and as such that the Complainant has also failed to meet its burden as to this element of the Policy. 7. Decision
Although the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s marks, the Complainant has failed to show that the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests or that there is a bad faith registration and use by the Respondent. Therefore, the Complainant's request for relief is denied.
Selma Ünlü
Sole Panelist
Dated: August 24, 2011
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy