The Complainant is Cisco Technology, Inc. of San Jose, California, United States of America (“United States”), represented by Gün & Partners, Turkey.
The Respondent is Akin Demirci of Istanbul, Turkey. 2. The Domain Names and Registrar
The disputed domain names , and are registered with N, Inc. (N LLC) (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on January 17, 2018. On January 17, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On January 18, 2018, 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 January 22, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was February 11, 2018. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on February 12, 2018.
The Center appointed Kaya Köklü as the sole panelist in this matter on February 21, 2018. 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 publicly traded technology company, which provides a wide range of products and services, including networking and communications equipment and software.
The Complainant owns a large number of word and figurative CISCO trademark registrations around the world, including in Turkey. According to the documents submitted by the Complainant, the Complainant is inter alia the registered owner of the Turkish Trademark Registrations No. 191727 (registered on March 22, 1999) and No. 2002 25163 (registered on December 18, 2003), both covering trademark protection for various goods and services related to its business.
The Complainant also owns and operates various domain names which incorporate the CISCO trademark, such as .
The Respondent is an individual located in Istanbul, Turkey.
The disputed domain name was registered on May 3, 2007.
The disputed domain name was registered on May 4, 2012.
The disputed domain name was registered on March 13, 2010.
The disputed domain names resolve to an active website in the Turkish language at “www.”, which provides various articles and reports on the Complainant’s products and services. The Complainant’s screenshot as provided in the case file shows that the Respondent prominently uses the CISCO word mark without publishing any visible disclaimer describing the non-existent relationship between the Parties. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant requests the transfer of the disputed domain names.
The Complainant is of the opinion that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to its CISCO trademark.
Furthermore, the Complainant argues that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names. It is rather argued that the disputed domain names falsely suggest that there is some official or authorized link with the Complainant.
Finally, it is argued that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain names in bad faith. The Complainant particularly argues that the Respondent must have been well aware of the Complainant’s CISCO trademark, when registering the disputed domain names, particularly as the Respondent prominently uses the Complainant’s CISCO word mark on the website linked to the disputed domain names without any disclosure of the missing relationship between the Complainant and the Respondent. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
According to paragraph 15(a) of the Rules, the Panel shall decide the Complaint in accordance with the Policy, the Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable.
In accordance with paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove that each of the three following elements is satisfied:
(i) the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights; and
(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names; and
(iii) the disputed domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith.
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy states that the Complainant bears the burden of proving that all these requirements are fulfilled, even if the Respondent has not replied to the Complaint’s contentions. Stanworth Development Limited v. E Net Marketing Ltd.,WIPO Case No. D2007-1228.
However, concerning the uncontested information provided by the Complainant, the Panel may, where relevant, accept the provided reasonable factual allegations in the Complaint as true. See, section 2.1 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”).
It is further noted that the Panel has taken note of the WIPO Overview 3.0 and, where appropriate, will decide consistent with the WIPO Overview 3.0. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has registered trademark rights in the mark CISCO by virtue of various longstanding trademark registrations, including in Turkey.
The Panel further finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered CISCO trademark, as they fully incorporate the Complainant’s trademark. The mere addition of the abbreviations “tr” and “turk”, both apparently standing for Turkey, does not in view of the Panel serve to distinguish the disputed domain names from the Complainant’s registered CISCO trademark.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirement under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Panel further finds that the Respondent has failed to demonstrate any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names.
While the burden of proof on this element remains with the complainant, previous UDRP panels have recognized that this would result in the often impossible task of proving a negative, in particular as the evidence in this regard is often primarily within the knowledge of the respondent. Therefore, the Panel agrees with prior UDRP panels that the Complainant is required to make out a prima facie case before the burden of production of evidence shifts to the Respondent to show that it has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names in order to meet the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. See, Croatia Airlines d.d. v. Modern Empire Internet Ltd.,WIPO Case No. D2003-0455.
The Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied this requirement, while the Respondent has failed to file any evidence or make any convincing argument to demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names according to the Policy, paragraphs 4(a)(ii) and 4(c).
In its Complaint, the Complainant has provided uncontested prima facie evidence that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests to use the Complainant’s trademark CISCO in a confusingly similar way within the disputed domain names.
There is also no indication in the current record that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain names. Furthermore, the Respondent has failed to demonstrate any of the other non-exclusive circumstances evidencing rights or legitimate interests under the Policy, paragraph 4(c) or other evidence of rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
The Panel particularly notes that the Respondent’s website which is linked to the disputed domain names does not adequately disclose the relationship, or lack thereof, between the Respondent and the Complainant, thus creating the false impression that the Respondent might be an official and authorized agent for the Complainant’s products and services in Turkey. In view of the Panel, this takes the Respondent out of any conceivable safe harbour for purposes of the second element.
As a conclusion, the Panel finds that the Complainant has also satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Panel is further convinced that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain names in bad faith.
The Panel notes the reputation and wide recognition of the Complainant’s trademark CISCO, not only in Turkey. The Panel is convinced that the Respondent must have had this well-known trademark in mind when registering the disputed domain names.
It even appears that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name solely for the purpose of creating an association with the Complainant. After having reviewed the Complainant’s screenshot of the website linked to the disputed domain names, the Panel is convinced that the Respondent has intentionally registered the disputed domain names in order to generate traffic to its own website. The Panel notes that the Respondent has not published any visible disclaimer on the website linked to the disputed domain name to explain that there is no existing relationship between the Respondent and the Complainant. Quite the opposite, the design of the website linked to the disputed domain names and the prominent use of the Complainant’s CISCO word mark is sufficient evidence in view of the Panel that the Respondent intentionally tries to attract, for commercial or any other illegitimate gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s CISCO trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of its website. In the Panel’s view, the Respondent is misrepresenting itself as the trademark owner without being entitled to do so.
Furthermore, the Panel finds that the Respondent’s failure to respond to the Complaint also supports the conclusion that it has registered and is using the disputed domain names in bad faith. The Panel believes that, if the Respondent did in fact have legitimate purposes in registering and using the disputed domain names, it would have probably responded.
The Panel therefore concludes that the disputed domain names were registered and are used in bad faith and that the Complainant has also satisfied the third element of the Policy, namely, 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 names , and be transferred to the Complainant.
Kaya Köklü
Sole Panelist
Date: March 7, 2018
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy