The Complainant is BP2R Sarl of Paris, France represented by WELAW Avocats, France.
The Respondent is Kaan Yilmaz 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 was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on November 9, 2016. On November 10, 2016, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On November 11, 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.
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 November 15, 2016. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was December 5, 2016. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on December 6, 2016.
The Center appointed Luca Barbero as the sole panelist in this matter on December 9, 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 operates since 2005 in the field of management and transport consulting.
The Complainant is the owner of the French trademark registration No. 3835588 for BP2R (word mark) registered on May 31, 2011, in classes 9, 12, 35, 39 and 42, and the European trademark registration No. 010277747 for BP2R (word mark), filed on September 20, 2011 and registered on January 17, 2012, in classes 9, 12, 35, 39 and 42.
The Complainant owns the domain name , that was registered on June 21, 2006, and at which the Complainant operates its web site.
The disputed domain name was registered on April 24, 2014. 5. Parties' Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is identical to its trademark BP2R.
It claims that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name for the following reasons:
- The Respondent has no right in the disputed domain name;
- The Complainant has not found any link between a person or entity named like the Respondent and the sign BP2R;
- The disputed domain name is not pointed to an active web site;
- The Complainant owns the domain name , at which it operates its company web site;
- When the Complainant searches for BP2r on the Google search engine, two links on the first page refer to "" which indicates "504 Gateway Time-out".
The Complainant also states that, due to the Respondent's registration of the disputed domain name, the Complainant cannot register it, a circumstance which would reduce the development of its company at the international level and is an issue with respect to the SEO ranking of the Complainant's web site "www.".
The Complainant points out that the registration of the disputed domain name constitutes an infringement of the Complainant's trademarks and affects the trade name and reputation of the Complainant, which is very well-known in France and at the European level.
In addition, the Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name is not exploited by the Respondent and there is no link between the disputed domain name and the Respondent.
The Complainant also informs the Panel that it sent emails and a letter to the Respondent requesting the transfer of the disputed domain name, but received no answer to said communications. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
According to paragraph 15(a) of the Rules: "A Panel shall decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable". Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy directs that the Complainant must prove each of the following:
(i) that the disputed domain name registered by the Respondent 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 Complainant has provided evidence of ownership of valid trademark registrations for BP2R.
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is identical to the trademark BP2R, as it reproduces the trademark in its entirety with the sole addition of the generic Top-Level Domain suffix ".com", which can be disregarded when comparing the similarities between a domain name and a trademark (see Canyon Bicycles GmbH v. Domains By Proxy, LLC / Rob van Eck,WIPO Case No. D2014-0206; and Zions Bancorporation v. Mohammed Akik Miah,WIPO Case No. D2014-0269).
Therefore, the Panel finds that the Complainant has proven the requirement prescribed by paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant is required to make a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests and, once such prima facie case is made, the burden of production shifts to the Respondent to submit appropriate allegations or evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. If the Respondent fails to demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name in accordance with paragraph 4(c) of the Policy or on any other basis, the Complainant is deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. See Malayan Banking Berhad v. Beauty, Success & Truth International,WIPO Case No. D2008-1393; Accor v. Eren Atesmen,WIPO Case No. D2009-0701; and WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition ("WIPO Overview 2.0"), paragraph 2.1.
The Panel finds that the Complainant has made a prima facie case and that the Respondent, by not submitting a response, has failed to demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name in accordance with paragraph 4(c) of the Policy.
According to the evidence on records, there is no relation between the Respondent and the Complainant and the Respondent has not obtained any authorization to use the Complainant's trademarks and to register and use the disputed domain name.
In addition, there is also no indication before the Panel that the Respondent might be commonly known by the disputed domain name.
There is also no evidence before the Panel that the Respondent might have used, or made preparation to use, the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use before any notice of the dispute.
Therefore, the Panel finds that the requirement prescribed by paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy has been met. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
In light of the Complainant's prior registration and use of the Complainant's trademark BP2R and considering the nature of the mark, which does not correspond to a descriptive or generic term but consists in a combination of letters with a number which is inherently distinctive, the Panel finds, based on the evidence on record, that the Respondent's registration of the disputed domain name did not amount to a mere coincidence, and that the Respondent, on the balance of probabilities, had the Complainant's trademark in mind at the time of the registration of the disputed domain name.
The disputed domain name is not pointed to an active web site. However, it is well established that passive holding of a domain name could amount to bad faith under certain circumstances as decided i.a. in Telstra Corporation Limited. v. Nuclear Marshmallows,WIPO Case No. D2000-0003.
In view of the Respondent's registration of the disputed domain name, identical to the Complainant's prior trademark, the absence of any documented right or legitimate interest of the Respondent, its failure to respond to the Complainant's cease-and-desist letters and to the Complaint, the Panel finds that the Respondent's lack of use of the disputed domain name amounts to bad faith.
In light of the above, the Panel finds that the Complainant has proven 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.
Luca Barbero
Sole Panelist
Date: December 28, 2016
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy