The Complainant is Altınkaynak Kuyumculuk ve Mücevherat A.Ş. of Ankara, Turkey, represented by Dağci Hukuk Bürosu, Turkey.
The Respondent is Artem Rakhno of St. Petersburg, Russian Federation. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name [] is registered with Dynadot, LLC (the "Registrar"). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on November 22, 2016. On November 22, 2016, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed 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.
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 28, 2016. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was December 18, 2016. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on December 19, 2016.
The Center appointed Fabrizio Bedarida as the sole panelist in this matter on December 23, 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 in this proceeding is Altınkaynak Kuyumculuk ve Mücevherat A.Ş. of Ankara, Turkey.
The Complainant started its business in the jewelry field and then expanded its business. In the year 1989, the Complainant was one of the first companies to have legal authority for exchange transactions in Turkey. In the year 2000, the Complainant became a member of the Istanbul Gold Exchange.
The Complainant owns, inter alia, the Turkish trademark with application number 96/002499 for ALTINKAYAK ("altinkaynak"), first registered on February 27, 1996 in class 14 and the Turkish trademark with application number 2011/113154 for ALTINKAYAK ("altınkaynak"), first registered on December 20, 2011 in class 35.
Moreover, the Complainant is also the owner of the domain name, registered on February 21, 2000.
The Complainant's commercial title "Altınkaynak" comes from the surname of the founder partner Kemal Altunkaynak. "Altunkaynak" is a compound noun made with two Turkish words "altun" and "kaynak". The word "altun" is the old usage of the word "altın" in Turkish and means "gold", the word "kaynak" means "source".
The Complainant's name "Altınkaynak" is actually written and spelled with the Turkish "ı". Since non-ASCII characters were not available on the Internet prior to 2003, Complainant registered the domain name , replacing the Turkish dotless "ı" with "i".
The disputed domain name was registered on February 11, 2015.
The disputed domain name is used to direct Internet users to a parking webpage where links in Turkish and an offer to sale the disputed domain name are displayed.
The Complainant's trademark registrations predate the registration of the disputed domain name. 5. Parties' Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant claims that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's ALTINKAYNAK registered trademark; that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests whatsoever with respect to the disputed domain name; and that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
In order for the Complainant to obtain a transfer of the disputed domain name, paragraphs 4(a)(i) – (iii) of the Policy require that the Complainant must demonstrate to the Panel that:
(i) The disputed 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 disputed domain name; and
(iii) The disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has established that it has rights in the trademark ALTINKAYNAK ("altınkaynak").
UDRP panels have generally disregarded the generic Top-Level Domain suffix under the confusing similarity test for purposes of the Policy.
If the suffix from the disputed domain name is removed, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is identical to Complainant's ALTINKAYNAK trademark.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
This Panel finds that the Complainant has made out a prima facie case that the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent has no connection or affiliation with the Complainant, and the Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized the Respondent to use or register any domain name incorporating the Complainant's trademark. The Respondent does not appear to be commonly known by the name "altınkaynak" or by a similar name. The Respondent does not appear to make any legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name, nor any use in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Indeed, the Respondent is using the disputed domain name to display a website mostly containing sponsored links (in Turkish) and an offer to sell the disputed domain name (in English). Owing to the fact that the Respondent has no connection or affiliation with the Complainant, and that the Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized the Respondent to use or register any domain name incorporating the Complainant's trademark, the Panel can think of no possible legitimate justification for this use, and the Respondent has not come forward with any explanation that demonstrates any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Based on the evidence put forward by the Complainant, the Panel is of the opinion that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant's trademark registrations and rights to the ALTINKAYNAK mark when it registered the disputed domain name.
The Complainant's trademark is a compound name made with two Turkish words: "altın" meaning "gold" and "kaynak" that means "source". It has been registered and used for many years, first in the field of jewelry and then in the gold exchange, foreign exchange and stock market, and thus it long predates the disputed domain name's registration. The disputed domain name is used to direct Internet users to a website where sponsored links, also referring to Complainant's competitors (e.g., Gcmforex, Best Forex Brokers etc.), are displayed. Moreover, most of these sponsored links are in Turkish, thus targeting the Turkish market. In addition the Respondent chose to use the Turkish "ı" rather than the Latin "i".
Therefore, it may reasonably be assumed that the Respondent knew about the Complainant's trademarks and business in Turkey and registered the disputed domain name in Turkish exclusively for the purpose of taking advantage of Internet traffic, from Internet users – especially Turkish users, looking for "Altınkaynak" products and services on the Internet.
On the balance of probability, this Panel considers that the Respondent, who apparently resides in the Russian Federation, should have been aware of the Complainant's trademark and activity when it registered the disputed domain name and intentionally intended to create an association with the Complainant and its business. In the Panel's view, in these circumstances it is highly unlikely that the registration of the disputed domain name was coincidental. Indeed, this Panel can think of no other legitimate reason why a presumable Russian resident would choose to register a domain name that it is composed of Turkish words, and that is identical to the trademark and name of the Complainant, which is a Turkish company operating for many years in Turkey.
The Respondent's use of the disputed domain name to direct Internet users to a website where sponsored links, also referring to Complainant's competitors, are displayed is further evidence of bad faith use.
Moreover, the Respondent's offer for sale of the disputed domain name for a starting price of USD 8,000, which well exceeds out-of-pocket costs, corresponds to bad faith registration and use pursuant to the Policy.
Finally, it appears that the Respondent when registering the disputed domain name provided an incorrect or at least incomplete address. In the present case, this fact can also be considered a further inference of bad faith registration.
Accordingly, the Panel finds, on the basis of the evidence presented, that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.
Therefore, the Complainant has satisfied 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 disputed domain name [] be transferred to the Complainant.
Fabrizio Bedarida
Sole Panelist
Date: January 5, 2017
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy