The Complainant is Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Ziraat Bankasi Anonim Şirketi of Ankara, Turkey, represented by Grup Ofis Marka Patent Inc., Turkey.
The Respondent is Servet Tarhan of Istanbul, Turkey. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The Disputed Domain Name is registered with GoD, LLC (the "Registrar"). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint in Turkish was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on October 8, 2015. On October 8, 2015, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Name. On October 8, 2015, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. Further to the Center's notification that the Registrar confirmed the language of proceeding as English, the Complainant submitted the English translated Complaint on October 26, 2015.
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 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on October 28, 2015. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was November 17, 2015. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on November 18, 2015.
The Center appointed Emre Kerim Yardimci as the sole panelist in this matter on November 30, 2015. 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 oldest and biggest Turkish banks established in nineteenth century as a state bank and it offers a wide range of banking products to individuals and businesses.
The Complainant has been using the trademark ZIRAAT BANKASI continuously since 1888 and holds a considerable number of trade and service mark registrations in Turkey and in other jurisdictions in addition to International registrations under the Madrid Protocol. The oldest of the Turkish registrations dates back to 2007. The Complainant holds several domain names incorporating "ziraat" and "ziraat bankasi", the oldest being registered in 1997.
The Complainant is operating participation banking services with ZIRAAT KATILIM trademark under the domain name and has been operating the general banking services under the domain name since June 11, 1997.
The Disputed Domain Name was created on September 27, 2013. According to the current record, the Respondent appears to be an individual of Turkish origin domiciled in Istanbul. 5. Parties' Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant asserts that the Disputed Domain Name is identical or at least confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademarks ZIRAAT BANKASI and ZIRAAT KATILIM and the addition of the generic words "bankasi" and "katilim" are not sufficient to distinguish the Disputed Domain Name from its trademarks.
The Complainant considers that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name, mainly because the Complainant has neither licensed nor otherwise authorized the Respondent to use its marks or to apply for or use any domain name incorporating the trademark ZIRAAT BANKASI or ZIRAAT KATILIM. The Complainant further asserted that the Respondent is not making a bona fide use of the Disputed Domain Name by soliciting offers to sell the Disputed Domain Name.
Finally, in addressing the question of registration and use of the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith, the Complainant observes that the Respondent, being resident of the same country where the Complainant operates, could not have ignored the Complainant's well-known mark and registered the Disputed Domain Name with the Complainant in mind then offered the Disputed Domain Name for sale to general public. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
In accordance with paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, for this Complaint to succeed in relation to the Disputed Domain Name, the Complainant must prove the following:
(i) that the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;
(ii) that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name; and
(iii) that the Disputed Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Policy requires the Complainant to show that the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
The Complainant owns numerous Turkish trademark registrations as well as international and foreign registrations, including Turkish Registration No. 2005 58096 for the trademark ZIRAAT BANKASI, registered on January 8, 2007 and the Turkish Trademark Registration No. 2014 87436 for the trademark ZIRAAT KATILIM registered on September 30, 2015.
The Disputed Domain Name integrates the Complainant's above mentioned trademarks as their dominant element. The Disputed Domain Name differs from the registered trademarks by the additional descriptive words "bankasi" or "katilim" as well as the generic Top-Level Domains ("gTLD") ".com", ".net" and ".org".
The words "bankası" and "katilim" do not serve to sufficiently distinguish or differentiate the Disputed Domain Name from the Complainant's trademarks, as they are descriptive terms that relate to financial services offered by the Complainant. Panel, especially acknowledges that the term "katilim" is a Turkish word for describing a banking system in which the funds of the account owners are invested according to the interest-free financing principles based on profit and loss sharing between the bank and account owners.
Several UDRP panels have ruled that the mere addition of a descriptive element does not sufficiently differentiate the domain name from the registered trademark. (see, e.g., Société des Produits Nestlé S.A. v. MrT LLC,WIPO Case No. D2012-1356; Allianz SE v. Roy Lee / Traffic-D,WIPO Case No. D2012-1459; Swarovski Aktiengesellschaft v. mei xudong,WIPO Case No. D2013-0150; Swarovski Aktiengesellschaft v. ,WIPO Case No. D2013-0335).
As regards the gTLDs, such as ".com", ".net" and ".org", these are typically disregarded under the confusing similarity test.
Consequently, the Panel finds that the Complainant has shown that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to trademarks in which the Complainant has rights. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant has made a prima facie showing of a lack of Respondent's rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name as asserted above. The Respondent, in the absence of any response, makes no effort to demonstrate any rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name and the Panel fails to find any such rights or legitimate interests in the record.
Accordingly, the Panel determines Complainant has sufficiently demonstrated that Respondent lacks any rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Panel accepts the Complainant's contention that the trademark ZIRAAT BANKASI is without any doubt a well-known trademark in Turkey. The incorporation of a well-known trademark into a domain name by a registrant having no plausible explanation for doing so may be, in and of itself, an indication of bad faith (Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin, Maison Fondée en 1772 v. The Polygenix Group Co.,WIPO Case No. D2000-0163; General Electric Company v. CPIC NET and Hussain Syed,WIPO Case No. D2001-0087; Microsoft Corporation v. Montrose Corporation,WIPO Case No. D2000-1568).
The Complainant has been in existence for more than 125 years and there is no other likely recipient of the Disputed Domain Name. According to the Panel, considering the prominent offer of sale on the website at the Disputed Domain Name, there is no doubt that Respondent has registered and used the Disputed Domain Name with the Complainant in mind for the purpose of selling, renting or otherwise transferring the Disputed Domain Name. For the same reason, the Panel is able to infer that the sale or transfer in question would be for valuable consideration in excess of documented out of pocket costs directly related to the Disputed Domain Name. Further the Panel notes that any potential use of the Disputed Domain Name may be disruptive of the Complainant's business.
The Panel finds the Complainant has carried its burden of proof that the Respondent registered and is using the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith. 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 Disputed Domain Name, , be transferred to the Complainant.
Emre Kerim Yardimci
Sole Panelist
Date: December 14, 2015
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy