Complainant is Türkiye Sise ve Cam Fabrikalari A.S. of Istanbul, Turkey, internally represented.
Respondent is Bulent M. Kamiloglu 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 April 17, 2018. On April 18, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On April 19, 2018, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that 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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on April 23, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was May 13, 2018. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on May 16, 2018.
The Center appointed Dilek Ustun Ekdial as the sole panelist in this matter on May 28, 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
Complainant is Türkiye Sise ve Cam Fabrikalari A.S., which controls under holding company of the Sisecam Group and operates in flat glass, glassware, glass packaging, and chemicals businesses at a total of 44 plants – 18 local and 26 abroad – with over 21,000 employees.
Complainant is notably the owner of the Turkish ISICAM trademark since July 31, 1975 (registration number 87388).
Complainant also owns the domain name , registered under the Turkish country code Top-Level Domain “.tr” on February 16, 2007, which is reflecting its trademark in order to promote its goods.
The disputed domain name was registered on February 11, 2005 and redirects to a website in Turkish at “”, including a list of domain names for sale. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
According to Complainant the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s ISICAM trademark.
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. Complainant has not given Respondent permission to use Complainant’s trademarks in any manner, including in domain name.
Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, which evinces a lack of rights or legitimate interests and also Respondent is making neither a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate, noncommercial fair use of the disputed domain name.
Finally, it is argued that Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.
Because Complainant believes that Respondent acquired the disputed domain name primarily for the purpose of selling it to Complainant or other third parties. Complainant states that Respondent uses the disputed domain name to direct Internet users to his web page “” displaying some domain names for sale. B. Respondent
Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules requires the Panel to decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, the Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable.
Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, Complainant bears the burden of showing:
(i) that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and
(ii) that 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
Complainant has demonstrated that it owns valid ISICAM trademark, registered in Turkey since the year 1975.
The disputed domain name contains Complainant’s trademark ISICAM in its entirety, without alteration or additions. The extension “.com” is typically not to be taken into consideration when examining the identity or confusing similarity between a complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name.
Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is identical to the trademark ISICAM in which Complainant has rights, satisfying the condition of the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i). B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Respondent has not provided any evidence of the type specified in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, or any other circumstances giving rise to a right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name. It is clear that Respondent has not demonstrated any bona fide offering of goods and services by its using the disputed domain name. Nor has Respondent shown that it has been commonly known by the disputed domain name. Rather, the evidence of Complainant suggests that Respondent has used the disputed domain name in an attempt to trade off the goodwill associated with Complainant’s trademark.
Complainant also showed, inter alia, that Respondent has neither a license nor any other permission to use Complainant’s trademark in the disputed domain name or otherwise.
The Panel finds that Complainant has made a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, and Respondent has failed to demonstrate such rights or legitimate interests.
The Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Panel is of the opinion that when Respondent registered the disputed domain name it knew that ISICAM was the trademark of Complainant, and that Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith.
It is obvious to this Panel that by using the disputed domain name Respondent has intention to sell the disputed domain name to Complainant or others.
There is no suggestion that Respondent had any intention of legitimate use, that it enjoys a legitimate connection to the disputed domain name or that there is conceivable good faith use for the disputed domain name. After examining all circumstances surrounding the registration and use of the disputed domain name, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.
Accordingly the Panel finds in favor of Complainant on the third element 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 Complainant.
Dilek Ustun Ekdial
Sole Panelist
Date: June 12, 2018
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy