The Complainant is Crocs, Inc., United States of America (“United States”), represented by Kestenberg Siegal Lipkus LLP, Canada.
The Respondent is WhoisGuard Protected, WhoisGuard, Inc., Panama / Erkan Demirci, Ed Reklam Ajansi, Turkey. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on January 7, 2020. On January 7, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On January 7, 2020, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on January 9, 2020 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on January 9, 2020. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended 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 14, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was February 3, 2020. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on February 5, 2020. The Center appointed Kaya Köklü as the sole panelist in this matter on February 13, 2020. 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 company registered in the United States and active in the field of manufacturing and distributing footwear and related merchandise. The Complainant owns various word and figurative CROCS trademark registrations around the world, including in Turkey, where the Respondent appears to be located. According to the provided documents in the case file, the Complainant is, inter alia, the registered owner of the Turkish Trademark Registrations No. 200614923 (registered on November 23, 2005) and No. 200632585 (registered on April 11, 2006) covering trademark protection inter alia for footwear. The Complainant also owns and operates various domain names that incorporate the CROCS trademark, such as The Respondent is an individual from Turkey. The disputed domain name was registered on August 7, 2019. The screenshots, as provided by the Complainant, show that the disputed domain name resolved to a website in the Turkish language, which was used for offering footwear allegedly under the trademark CROCS (cf. Annex A to the Complaint). The website was in Turkish, but mimicked the look and feel of a website authorized by the Complainant. On the website at the disputed domain name, the Respondent prominently used the CROCS trademark without any visible disclaimer describing the relationship between the parties. At the time of the decision, the disputed domain name does no longer resolve to an active website. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant requests the transfer of the disputed domain name. The Complainant is of the opinion that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its CROCS trademark. Furthermore, the Complainant argues that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. It is rather argued that the disputed domain name falsely suggests that there is some official or authorized link with the Complainant and the Respondent. Finally, it is argued that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. The Complainant particularly argues that the Respondent must have been well aware of the Complainant’s famous CROCS trademark, when registering the disputed domain name, particularly as the Respondent prominently used the Complainant’s word and figurative CROCS trademark on the website linked to the disputed domain name without authorization and any disclosure of the lack of 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 name is 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 name; and (iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is 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 Complainant’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 4.3 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 CROCS by virtue of various trademark registrations, including trademark registrations covering protection in Turkey, where the Respondent appears to be located. The Panel further finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered CROCS trademark, as it fully incorporates 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 addition of other terms or letters would not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. The mere addition of the geographical term “Turkiye” (which stands for “Turkey” in the Turkish language) does, in view of the Panel, not serve to avoid a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s CROCS 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 name. 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 shifts to the Respondent to show that it has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name 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 name 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 CROCS trademark in a confusingly similar way within the disputed domain name. There is also no indication in the current record that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. In the absence of a response, the Respondent has particularly 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 retailer 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 name 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 website which was linked to the disputed domain name until recently, did not adequately disclose the relationship, or rather the lack thereof, between the Respondent and the Complainant, thus creating the false impression that the Respondent might be an official and authorized reseller for the Complainant’s genuine products in Turkey. In view of the Panel, this takes the Respondent out of the Oki Data safe harbour for purposes of the second element. In addition, the Panel notes, the nature of the disputed domain name carries a risk of implied affiliation or association, as stated in section 2.5.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0. 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 In the Panel’s view, the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. The Panel is convinced that the Respondent must have had the Complainant’s trademark in mind when registering the disputed domain name. It even appears that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name solely for the purpose of creating an association with the Complainant, in particular with its footwear. After having reviewed the Complainant’s screenshots of the website, which was linked to the disputed domain name, the Panel is convinced that the Respondent has intentionally registered the disputed domain name 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 which was linked to the disputed domain name, and the prominent use of the Complainant’s CROCS trademark as well as the nature of the disputed domain name is, in view of the Panel, sufficient evidence that the Respondent intentionally tries to attract, for illegitimate commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s CROCS trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of its website. In any case, the Respondent’s lack of a disclaimer and misrepresenting itself as the trademark owner by prominently using the Complainant’s CROCS trademark on its website is further indication of bad faith. The fact that the disputed domain name does currently not resolve to an active website does not change the Panel’s findings in this respect. The Panel therefore concludes that the disputed domain name was registered and is being 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 name Kaya Köklü
Sole Panelist
Date: February 27, 2020
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy