The Complainant is Mehmet Özer of Kocaeli, Turkey, self-represented.
The Respondent is Bilisima Bilgi Teknolojileri Ltd. Sti of Kocaeli, Turkey. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The 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 April 4, 2016. On April 5, 2016, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On the same date, 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. In response to a notification by the Center that the Complaint was administratively deficient, the Complainant filed an amendment to the Complaint on April 16, 2016.
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 April 19, 2016. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was May 9, 2016. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on May 10, 2016.
The Center appointed Dilek Ustun Ekdial as the sole panelist in this matter on May 20, 2016. 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 the owner of a stationery and paper company in Turkey named “Huner Kagit” and has registered the trademark HUNER with a logo under international class 16 for paper goods. The registration date is April 12, 2006. The Complainant’s main website is found at “www..tr” but it is under construction at the moment. The term “kagit” which follows the trademark HUNER in the Domain Name is the Turkish translation of “paper”.
The Respondent’s website, to which the Domain Name resolves, displays the message: “This domain has been redirected.”
The registration date of the Domain Name is March 23, 2012.
According to the Complainant’s unrebutted contentions, the Respondent is an IT company hired by the Complainant to register the Domain Name on its behalf. However, the Respondent subsequently shut down operations and transferred control of the Domain Name to a third party. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant contends that he or his company has registered trademark rights in HUNER and that the Domain Name, which comprises its trade name “Huner kagit” together with the generic “.com” Top-Level Domain suffix, is identical or confusingly similar to its trademark.
The Complainant further contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name.
The Complainant contends that the Respondent registered the Domain Name in bad faith and is using it in bad faith. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings General
According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove that;
(i) The Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and
(ii) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in respect of the Domain Name; and
(iii) The Domain Name has been registered in bad faith and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant’s company has registered the trademark HUNER under international class 16 for paper products. The Panel finds that the Complainant has sufficient rights in the HUNER mark for Policy purposes, although the mark appears to be registered in the Complainant’s company’s name rather than his personal name. The Panel going forward will use “Complainant” to refer also to the company and mark holder, Huner Kagit.
By the time the Respondent registered the Domain Name in its own name, the Complainant was already an establishment in Turkey. The Respondent was acting as an IT company on the Complainant’s request, regarding the registration of the Domain Name in the name of the Complainant.
The Panel finds that the Complainant has trademark rights in HUNER. Since the Domain Name comprises the Complainant’s trademark and the generic “.com” suffix, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Panel finds that the Complainant has made a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. The Complainant showed, inter alia, that the Respondent has neither a license nor any other permission to use the Domain Name. The Respondent has failed to demonstrate such rights or legitimate interests. The Respondent has not provided any evidence of the type specified in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, or of any other circumstances giving rise to a right or legitimate interest in the Domain Name. It is clear that the Respondent has not demonstrated any bona fide offering of goods or services by its using of the Domain Name and has not rebutted the Complainant’s prima facie case. Nor has the Respondent shown that it has been commonly known by the Domain Name.
The Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name, and that the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy is met. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
When the Respondent registered the Domain Name, it knew that it contained the Complainant’s trademark.
The Panel, in accordance with previous decisions issued under the Policy, is of the opinion that actual knowledge of the Complainants’ trademark at the time of the registration of the disputed domain names may be considered as an indication of bad faith (see Parfums Christian Dior v. Javier Garcia Quintas and C,WIPO Case No. D2000-0226). .
The fact that the Complainant hired the Respondent to register the Domain Name does not, in the circumstances of this case, entail that this registration was made in good faith. Indeed, nothing in the Case File suggests the Complainant consented to the Respondent registering the Domain Name in its own name, rather than the Complainant’s, and common sense principles of corporate domain name management would suggest that no such license was given. See The NetBSD Foundation v. Charles Hannum,WIPO Case No. D2015-0976; Champion Innovations, Ltd. v. Udo Dussling (45FHH),WIPO Case No. D2005-1094.
Furthermore, in reaching its decision under this element, the Panel notes the lack of response by the Respondent (or from the third party who apparently now controls the Domain Name). While lack of response is not conclusive of bad faith, it is an additional element that adds to the overall case in support of the Complainant’s contentions in this regard.
In the circumstances of this casel, the passive holding of the Domain Name is no bar to a finding of bad faith use.
The Panel finds that the Domain Name was registered in bad faith and is being used in bad faith within the meaning 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
Date: June 3, 2016
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy