The Complainant is Siemens AG of Munich, Germany, represented by Müller Fottner Steinecke, Germany.
The Respondent is Mustafa Cetin, Ulus Teknik of Istanbul, Turkey, self-represented. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the "Domain Name") is registered with Key-Systems GmbH dba (the "Registrar"). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed in English with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on August 23, 2016. On August 23, 2016, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On August 24, 2016, 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, and stating that Turkish was the language of the registration agreement.
In light of the Complaint being filed in English, but the Registrar indicating that Turkish was the language of the registration agreement, on August 29, 2016 the Center requested in English and Turkish that the Parties submit their comments as to the language of the proceeding. In response, the Complainant requested English to be the language of proceeding on August 29, 2016. The Respondent replied to this request on August 30, 2016, suggesting that it did not understand the Complaint but making no request, in terms, that the language of the proceeding be Turkish.
In a further email to the Center on August 30, 2016, and in two further emails on August 31, 2016 and September 1, 2016, the Respondent offered to transfer the Domain Name. At request of the Complainant the proceeding was suspended on September 6, 2016, and reinstituted on September 19, 2016.
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 in English and Turkish, and the proceedings commenced on September 20, 2016. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was October 10, 2016. The Respondent did not submit any formal response. Accordingly, the Center informed the Parties of the commencement of the panel appointment process on October 11, 2016.
The Center appointed Ian Lowe as the sole panelist in this matter on October 17, 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 a leading electrical engineering and electronics company. It provides innovative technologies and comprehensive know-how to customers in 190 countries. It was founded more than 150 years ago and is active in the areas of household appliances, automation and control, power, transportation, information and communications.
The Complainant's registered trademarks include International registration number 637074 SIEMENS registered on March 31, 1995, designating more than 60 countries worldwide, including Turkey, and claiming protection in a wide range of classes. The Complainant is also the proprietor of European Union trade mark number 4240263 SIEMENS registered on March 28, 2006.
The Domain Name was registered on February 18, 2014. At the time of preparation of the Complaint, the Domain Name resolved to a website offering home appliance services, featuring the SIEMENS trademark. 5. Parties' Contentions
The Complainant contends that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to its SIEMENS trademarks, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name and that the Respondent registered and is using the Domain Name in bad faith within the meaning of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not submit any substantive formal response to the Complaint. 6. Discussion and Findings 6.1. Language of the Proceeding
The Complainant has requested that the language of the proceeding be English. Although the Respondent indicated in an email to the Center that it did not understand the issues raised by the English language Complaint, its subsequent three emails to the Center offered to transfer the Domain Name. The Panel finds that it would be inappropriate, given the circumstances of this case, to conduct the proceedings in Turkish. This would involve the costly and time-consuming translation of the Complaint into Turkish. The Respondent failed to make a proper request that the language of the proceeding be Turkish and then made a number of offers to transfer the Domain Name. In the circumstances, in accordance with the Complainant's request and the Rules, paragraph 11(a), the Panel determines that the language of this proceeding shall be English. The Panel is satisfied that the Respondent will not be prejudiced by a decision being rendered in English. 6.2. Substantive Issues
According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, for this Complaint to succeed in relation to the Domain Name 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 interests in respect of the Domain Name; and
(iii) the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has long-standing, uncontested rights in the trademark SIEMENS both by virtue of its International and European Union trademark registrations and as a result of its goodwill and reputation acquired through use of the SIEMENS mark over very many years. Ignoring the generic Top-Level Domain ("gTLD") ".com", the Domain Name comprises the Complainant's mark with the addition of, first, the name of a district in Istanbul, namely "Beylikduzu", and second, the Turkish word "servisi" which means "service" in English. The Panel considers that the addition of these terms does not detract from the distinctiveness of the SIEMENS trademark. On the contrary, their addition is likely to confuse Internet users into believing that the Domain Name was endorsed by or authorized by the Complainant.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant has made out a prima facie case that the Respondent could have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. The Respondent was using the Domain Name for a website promoting services by reference to the "Siemens" name in a manner that the Panel considers was likely to confuse users into believing that the Respondent was authorized by the Complainant to provide such services, particularly in the named district of Istanbul.
The Respondent has failed to respond to the Complaint or to take any steps to counter the prima facie case established by the Complainant. On the contrary, the Respondent made several offers to transfer the Domain Name, and deleted all content from the website at the Domain Name. There is no suggestion that the Respondent had made it clear on its website that it was not authorized by and had no relationship with the Complainant so as to give rise to any rights or legitimate interests in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. In the circumstances, the Panel finds that the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Panel is in no doubt that the Respondent had the Complainant and its rights in the SIEMENS trademark in mind when it registered the Domain Name. In the Panel's view, the Respondent used the Complainant's mark in the Domain Name in order to draw Internet users to its website in order to promote its services for commercial gain, in a manner which suggested that it was authorized by the Complainant. The Respondent has failed to respond to the Complainant's contentions and responded to the Complaint by deleting the content on its website and offering to transfer the Domain Name. In all the circumstances, the Panel is satisfied that the Domain Name was registered and is being used 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 Domain Name be transferred to the Complainant.
Ian Lowe
Sole Panelist
Date: October 28, 2016
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy