The Complainant is Renault s.a.s of Boulogne-Billancourt, France, represented by SILKA Law AB, Sweden.
The Respondent is Cem Aydin of Istanbul, Turkey. 2. The Domain Names and Registrar
The disputed domain names , , and are registered with IHS Telekom, Inc. (the "Registrar"). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint in English was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on July 27, 2018. On July 27, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On July 31, 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.
Pursuant to the Complaint submitted in English and the registrar verification dated July 31, 2018 stating that Turkish is the language of the registration agreement of the disputed domain name, on July 31, 2018, the Center sent a request in English and Turkish that the Parties submit their comments on the language of the proceeding. On July 31, 2018, the Respondent submitted its request for Turkish to be the language of the proceeding. On August 1, 2018, the Complainant submitted its request for English to be the language of the proceeding.
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 in English and Turkish of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on August 2, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was August 22, 2018. The Respondent submitted on July 31, 2018 an email communication including its language of proceeding request but did not submit any formal response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Parties on August 23, 2018 that it would proceed to panel appointment.
The Center appointed Kaya Köklü as the sole panelist in this matter on August 24, 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
Founded in 1898, the Complainant is a well-known global car manufacturer active in more than 100 countries worldwide.
It is the owner of the RENAULT trademark, which is registered in a large number of jurisdictions. According to the documents provided in the case file (cf. Annex 4), the Complainant is for example the registered owner of various RENAULT trademarks in the European Union and in Turkey, i.a., Turkish trademark RENAULT, registered on July 10, 1990 with trademark number 118539 and European Union trademark RENAULT, registered on May 13, 2015 with trademark number 013647061.
The Complainant also owns and operates various domain names which incorporate the RENAULT trademark, such as or .
The disputed domain names and were registered on September 19, 2012. The disputed domain name was registered on March 27, 2018.
The Respondent is an individual from Istanbul, Turkey.
The screenshots, as provided by the Complainant (cf. Annex 5), show that the disputed domain names and redirect to the website "www." offering spare parts for cars of many different manufacturers. As can be seen on the screenshots, the Complainant's RENAULT trademark is prominently used without publishing any visible disclaimer describing the lack of relationship between the Parties. The disputed domain name resolves to a website indicating that the website is under construction. 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 RENAULT 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 between the Complainant and the Respondent.
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 well-known trademark when registering and using it as a distinctive part of the disputed domain names. B. Respondent
The Respondent submitted on July 31, 2018 a request for Turkish to be the language of the proceeding but did not submit a formal Response. 6. Discussion and Findings 6.1. Language of the Proceeding
Although the language of the registration agreement of the disputed domain name is the Turkish language, the Panel finds that it would be unnecessary, given the circumstances of this case, to conduct the proceedings in Turkish and request costly and time-consuming translations of documents by the Complainant.
Even though the Respondent asked for Turkish as the language of the proceedings, the Panel notes that in the end, the Respondent preferred not to respond to the Complainant's contentions, although being informed by the Center in Turkish and English and being explicitly permitted to render a response in Turkish. The Panel also notes that the Respondent offers its products on the website linked to the disputed domain names in various languages, including in the English language. In view of the Panel, it is obvious that the Respondent is well capable to read, understand and probably also write in English language.
Consequently, the Panel assesses the Respondent's request for Turkish as the language of the proceedings as an harassment and unsuccessful attempt to delay and torpedo the proceedings initiated by the Complainant. Bearing this in mind, the Panel believes that the Respondent will not be prejudiced by a decision being rendered in the English language.
Hence, the Panel determines in accordance with the Complainant's request and the Rules, paragraph 11(a), that the language of these administrative proceedings shall be the English language. 6.2. Substantive Issues
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 consensus views captured therein. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has registered trademark rights in the mark RENAULT 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 RENAULT trademark, as they fully incorporate the Complainant's trademark. As stated at section 1.8 of the WIPO Overview 3.0, where the relevant trademark is recognizable within the disputed domain name, the additions of other terms would not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. In view of the Panel, the mere addition of the terms "parts", "ech", and "original" do not serve to prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain names and Complainant's RENAULT 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 relevant evidence 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 RENAULT trademark 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, particularly as all the disputed domain names have been registered just recently. 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.
In this regard, the Panel is particularly convinced that the Respondent cannot be assessed as a legitimate dealer for the Complainant's products in light of Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ASD, Inc.,WIPO Case No. D2001-0903 ("Oki Data") and thus is not entitled to use the disputed domain names accordingly. The criteria as set forth in Oki Data are apparently not fulfilled in the present case. The Panel particularly notes that the Respondent's websites which are linked to the disputed domain names do 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 distributor for the Complainant's products in Turkey. Also, the Respondent apparently offers not only spare parts of the Complainant but of many other car manufacturers, as well. In view of the Panel, all this takes the Respondent out of the Oki Data 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 RENAULT, 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 names 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 RENAULT word mark is sufficient evidence in view of the Panel that the Respondent intentionally tries to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's RENAULT trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of its website. In the Panel's view, the Respondent is trying to represent itself as the trademark owner without being entitled to do so.
Furthermore, the Panel finds that the Respondent's failure to respond to the Complainant's contentions 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: September 7, 2018
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy