The Complainant is Tupras Turkiye Petrol Rafinerileri A.S. of Kocaeli, Turkey, represented by June Intellectual Property Services Inc., Turkey.
The Respondent is Yasin Ozcelik of Stamford, Connecticut, United States of America (“United States”), self-represented. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with Tucows Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on May 17, 2017. On May 17, 2017, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On May 17, 2017, 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 June 1, 2017. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was June 21, 2017. The Response, consenting to the transfer of the Domain Name, was filed with the Center on June 21, 2017. On the same day, the Center notified the Parties, pursuant to the Rules, paragraph 17, that a UDRP proceeding may be suspended to implement a settlement agreement between the Parties and that, if the Parties wish to explore settlement options, the Complainant should submit a request for suspension by June 28, 2017. No such request was received.
The Center appointed Alan L. Limbury as the sole panelist in this matter on July 4, 2017. 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
Founded in 1983, the Complainant is Turkey’s largest industrial enterprise. It operates four oil refineries, with a total of 28.1 million tons annual crude oil processing capacity. On October 4, 2000, the Complainant registered in Turkey the trademark TÜPRAŞ, Registration No. 2000 21164 in classes 1, 4 and 19 and Registration No. 2000 21165 in classes 37, 39, 40, 42 and 45. It has also registered numerous other trademarks incorporating that word.
The Domain Name was registered on August 20, 2008. It resolves to a website featuring the following statement in both Turkish and English:
“TUPRAS.NET
This domain name is for sale in auction format. You can submit your bid using the link below.
[…]
You can also submit your offer directly to the email address […].
TURKISH-AMERICAN YOUNG ENTREPRENEURS PLATFORM”
The Domain Name is also listed for sale on the “” website for USD 3,500. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant seeks transfer to it of the Domain Name, asserting that the Domain Name is identical to the Complainant’s TÜPRAŞ mark because it wholly incorporates that mark; and that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name, which was registered and is being used in bad faith. B. Respondent
The Respondent says he respects the intellectual property rights of the Complainant as stated, and hence, does not offer a response to the statements made in the Complaint. The Respondent consents to the remedy and agrees to transfer the Domain Name to the Complainant.
The Respondent says he has assigned a technical support person, who will be in charge of initiating, monitoring, and successfully completing the transfer of the Domain Name. The support person is based in the United States and charges USD 100 per hour for the services provided. The total number of labor hours to be invested by the person is expected to be less than three hours. The Respondent respectfully requests that the service fee be paid by the Complainant. The Respondent says that, as a courtesy, he does not make any financial claims regarding the previous registration renewal cost of the Domain Name, which have been paid by the Respondent since August 2008. 6. Discussion and Findings
According to the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition
(“WIPO Overview 3.0”), paragraph 4.10:
“[…] where the respondent has […] given its consent on the record to the transfer (or cancellation) remedy sought by the complainant, many panels will order the requested remedy solely on the basis of such consent.”
An example of such a case is The Cartoon Network LP, LLLP v. Mike Morgan,WIPO Case No.D2005-1132.
In the circumstances of this case, the Panel considers that transfer of the Domain Name should be ordered without making any findings on the merits of the Complaint.
The Panel also questions the Respondent’s assertions as to the time and expense required to transfer the Domain Name; that is immaterial in any event as the Panel orders the transfer of the Domain Name. 7. Decision
For the foregoing reasons, the Panel orders that the Domain Name be transferred to the Complainant.
Alan L. Limbury
Sole Panelist
Date: July 10, 2017
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy