The Complainant is Borusan Holding Anonim Şirketi of Istanbul, Turkey, represented by BTS & Partners, Turkey.
The Respondent is Mahmut Erdogan of Istanbul, Turkey. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with GoD, LLC. 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on January 18, 2012. On January 19, 2012, the Center transmitted by email to GoD, LLC a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On January 19, 2012, GoD, LLC 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 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 January 23, 2012. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was February 12, 2012. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on February 13, 2012.
The Center appointed Dilek Ustun Ekdial as the sole panelist in this matter on February 21, 2012. 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 one of the largest group companies of Turkey with companies in the steel, distributorship, logistics, and energy industries. Founded in 1944, the Complainant has also a very significant reputation in Turkey through its cultural, education and community activities under its name “Borusan”.
The Complainant has a trademark for BORUSAN HOLDING, registered on May 23, 2005, before the Turkish Patent Institute. The Complainant also has a registered trademark for BORUSAN since 1982.
The trademarks BORUSAN and BORUSAN HOLDING were registered long before the registration of the Domain Name (which was created on December 08, 2011, and registered by the Respondent on December 14, 2011).
The Complainant does not provide online adult entertainment, nor does it represent providers, or provide products or services to providers or representatives of online adult entertainment.
The Respondent does not appear to provide online adult entertainment, nor does it appear to represent providers, or provide products or services to providers or representatives of online adult entertainment. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
According to the Complainant, the Domain Name comprises the term “borusanholding”, which is identical to the trademark BORUSAN HOLDING, registered by the Complainant.
Also, the addition of the generic top-level domain (gTLD) “.xxx” does not have any impact on the overall impression of the dominant portion of the Domain Name and is therefore irrelevant to determining the confusing similarity between the Domain Name and the trademark.
The Complainant states that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name.
The Complainant contends that it is also clear that no license or authorization of any kind has been given by the Complainant to the Respondent to use the trademark.
The Complainant further contends that its BORUSAN HOLDING trademark has the status of a well-known and reputed trademark with a substantial and widespread reputation throughout the world.
According to the Complainant, the Respondent was aware of the rights the Complainant has in the trademark BORUSAN HOLDING and the value of said trademark at the moment of the registration of the Domain Name.
The Complainant also added that the Domain Name is not live yet and that passive holding may also be deemed as bad faith use as specified in several UDRP decisions, including Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows,WIPO Case No. D2000-0003.
Consequently, by referring to the above-mentioned arguments, the Respondent must be considered to have registered and used the Domain Name in bad faith. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules requires this Panel to decide the Complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, the Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable.
Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant bears the burden of showing:
(i) that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and
(ii) that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and
(iii) that the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has registered the trademark BORUSAN HOLDING in respect of several classes. The trademark BORUSAN HOLDING was registered long before the registration of the Domain Name.
The Panel concurs with the opinion of several prior UDRP panels which have held that, when a domain name wholly incorporates a complainant’s registered mark, that may be sufficient to establish confusing similarity for purposes of the Policy. See, e.g., Kabushiki Kaisha Hitachi Seisakusho (d/b/a Hitachi Ltd) v. Arthur Wrangle, WIPO Case No. D2005-1105; Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ASD, Inc.,WIPO Case No. D2001-0903; Magnum Piering, Inc. v. The Mudjackers and Garwood S. Wilson, Sr.,WIPO Case No. D2000-1525; EAuto, L.L.C. v. Triple S. Auto Parts d/b/a Kung Fu Yea Enterprises, Inc.,WIPO Case No. D2000-0047; Bayerische Motoren Werke AG v. ,WIPO Case No. D2002-0615.
Additionally, as the Respondent is in default, it has brought no argument to support any contention that the Domain Name would not be identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
Therefore, the Panel finds that the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is met. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Respondent has not provided any evidence in relation to the circumstances specified in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, or evidence for any other circumstances giving rise to rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. It is clear to the Panel that the Respondent has not demonstrated any bona fide offering of goods or services. Nor has the Respondent shown that it has been commonly known by the Domain Name. The Complainant showed, inter alia, that the Respondent has neither a license nor any other permission to use the BORUSAN HOLDING trademark in the Domain Name. The Panel finds that the Complainant has made a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name, and the Respondent has failed to demonstrate such rights or legitimate interests.
The Panel therefore finds that the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy is met. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy provides a list of indicative circumstances that, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of bad faith registration and use, however, such list is not exhaustive and a finding of bad faith depends on the circumstances of each case.
The examples of bad faith registration and use set forth in paragraph 4(b) of the Policy are not meant to be exhaustive of all circumstances from which such bad faith may be found. See Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows,WIPO Case No. D2000-0003.
The Panel considers it an inescapable conclusion from the undisputed facts and circumstances reflected in the record that the Respondent must have known of and had in mind the Complainant’s marks when registering the Domain Name. See generally Ticketmaster Corporation v. Spider Web Design, Inc.,WIPO Case No. D2000-1551. As noted in Research In Motion Limited v. Dustin Picov,WIPO Case No. D2001-0492, when a domain name is so obviously connected with a complainant, the very use of the domain name by a registrant with no connection to the complainant suggests “opportunistic bad faith”. See also Paule Ka v. Paula Korenek,WIPO Case No. D2003-0453. In view of the foregoing, the Panel can ascribe no motive for the Respondent’s registration and use of the Domain Name as reflected in the record except to trade on the goodwill associated with the Complainant’s mark.
The Respondent’s bad faith is also shown by its use of the Domain Name (or lack thereof). The Domain Name does not appear to resolve to an active website, and given the circumstances of this case, the Panel finds that this amounts to bad faith.
The Respondent apparently registered the Domain Name even though it appears not to qualify to register a domain name on the “.xxx” register. The Respondent’s defiance of the applicable “.xxx” gTLD registration eligibility requirements is a further indication of the Respondent’s bad faith.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy. 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 Domain Name be transferred to the Complainant.
Dilek Ustun Ekdial
Sole Panelist
Dated: March 6, 2012
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy