The Complainant is Hacı Ömer Sabancı Holding A.Ş., Turkey, represented by BTS & Partners, Turkey.
The Respondent is George Jacob, United States of America. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name The original Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on December 14, 2020. On December 14, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On December 14, 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 December 15, 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 December 18, 2020. The Center verified that the Complaint and the amended Complaint (together referred to as “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 December 18, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was January 7, 2021. On January 1, 2021, the Center received an email communication from a third party. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center informed the Parties that it was proceeding to panel appointment on January 17, 2021. The Center appointed Clive Duncan Thorne as the sole panelist in this matter on January 25, 2021. 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, known as Sabanci Holding, is one of Turkey’s leading conglomerates, whose main business areas are banking, insurance, energy, industrials, cement, and retail. It operates in regions across Europe, the Middle East, Asia, North Africa, North and South America. It is also the parent company, which manages the Sabanci Group companies. It has nine global partnerships, 12 public companies listed on the Borsa Istanbul, over 62 thousand employees, activities in 12 countries and has invested USD 20 billion over the past 10 years. Its shares constitute 8.1% of the total capitalization of the Turkish equity market. It operates on coordinating and supporting the financing, strategy, business development and human resources functions in accordance with corporate governance principles. It assesses business development projects both financially and strategically and prioritizes projects where there is high-value creation, real growth potential and in which current competencies within the group can be utilized effectively. The group operates in the financial services and investment sectors including: banking, insurance, investment, financial leasing, portfolio management and electronic money and payment services. The Complainant’s banking subsidiary Akbank has a strong and extensive distribution network of 770 branches throughout Turkey with more than 12,000 employees. Akbank’s affiliate Ak Investment offers domestic and foreign capital market products to individual and corporate customers. Since 2005 it has successfully mediated numerous public offerings worth over USD 3 billion. Akbank has registered the mark AKYATIRIM at the Turkish Patent and Trademark Office. The Complainant is also active in the banking and financial sector through its partner companies: Aksigorta, which offers insurance products under the mark AKSIGORTA and AvivaSA, which offers private pension and life insurance products under the mark AVIVASA EMEKLILIK VE HAYAT. Both marks are registered at the Turkish Patent and Trademark Office. The Complainant owns the trade mark SABANCI, which is registered in Turkey and elsewhere together with 30 other registrations comprising SABANCI either alone or combined with other terms. A full list of registrations is exhibited at Annex 5 to the Complaint. These include: i. SABANCI registered in Turkey No. 170885 in classes 35, 36, 38, 41, and 42, registered on May 13, 1997; ii. SABANCI registered in Turkey No. 2015 00400 in classes 4, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 16, 17, 18, 19, 22, 23, 24, 25, 34, 35, 36, 37, 40, 41, 42, 43, and 44, registered on October 20, 2015; iii. SABANCI International Trademark No. 1273407 in classes 4, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 16, 17, 18, 19, 22, 23, 24, 25, 34, 35, 36, 37, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, and 44, registered on March 18, 2015. The trade mark registrations relied upon predate the date of registration of the disputed domain name on October 24, 2020. The Complainant has registered and uses numerous domain names, which include the mark SABANCI which are set out in the Complaint. These include In the absence of a Response, nothing is known about the Respondent save for the evidence of a phishing email sent by the Respondent, a screenshot of which is exhibited at Annex 11 to the Complaint. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant submits: i. It owns registered trade mark rights in the mark SABANCI, which predate the registration of the disputed domain name, which is confusingly similar to the mark SABANCI. ii. On the evidence the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name and is not making a bona fide offering of goods or services using the disputed domain name. iii. On the evidence the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. However, the Center received an email communication from a third party on January 1, 2021, indicating that there was no one named “George Jacob” residing at the address, which the Registrar disclosed as the Respondent’s address. 6. Discussion and Findings In the absence of a Response, the Panel finds the above evidence adduced by the Complainant to be true and proceeds to determine the Complaint on that evidence. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar On the basis of the evidence of the Complainant’s registered trade marks SABANCI in Turkey and internationally, set out in section 4 above, the Panel finds that the Complainant is the owner of trade mark rights in the mark SABANCI and that these predate the registration of the disputed domain name on October 24, 2020. The Complainant submits that the term “sabanci” is the dominant element of the disputed domain name. It points out that the disputed domain name incorporates “sabanci” in its entirety and that there is no other distinctive element. The remainder of the disputed domain name consists of the term “group”, which it submits is merely descriptive to designate an economic or legal entity formed of parent and affiliated companies. The Panel finds that the addition of this term does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s trade mark. The Complainant points out that “sabanci” as used in the disputed domain name incorporates the Latin letter “i” rather than the Turkish “dotless” version “ı” but submits that this difference does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. In this sense, section 1.9 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”) states that a domain name, which consists of a common, obvious, or intentional misspelling of a trademark is considered by UDRP panels to be confusingly similar to the relevant mark for purposes of the first element. The Panel agrees with these submissions and finds, pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trade mark SABANCI in which the Complainant has registered rights. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Complainant submits that there is no evidence that the Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain name. Nor is there evidence showing that the Respondent’s use or demonstrable preparations to use the disputed domain name before any notice to it of the dispute was in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Rather, there is evidence that the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name is in connection with a bad faith offering of goods or services. This evidence consists of an email dated November 18, 2020 displaying the Complainant’s corporate address, the trade mark SABANCI, purporting to offer investment services by way of a phishing email as detail of an extension and purporting, contrary to the fact, to be sent to a client company from the Complainant’s CEO. A screenshot of the email is exhibited at Annex 11 to the Complaint. In the email, the Respondent introduces himself as a broker and investor and purports to impersonate the Complainant’s CEO. The recipient indicated in a later email, a screenshot of which is exhibited as Annex 12 to the Complaint, that he “would be happy to forward all communications received so that Sabanci can investigate fraud.” On the basis of this evidence the Panel is satisfied that the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name was in connection with a bad faith offering of goods or services. The Panel therefore finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name within paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Complainant submits on the evidence that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant and its distinctive trade mark SABANCI at the date of its registration and chose the disputed domain name for its value in attracting Internet users familiar with the Complainant’s mark. The evidence set out in section 6B above of the phishing email at Annex 11 to the Complaint, purporting to come from the Complainant’s CEO, is evidence of bad faith. The Respondent used the email in order to intentionally attempt to attract for commercial gain Internet users familiar with the Complainant’s mark by misleading them and creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of its website within paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. This is shown by the response of the recipient of the email who recognized that it was prima facie fraudulent. The Panel is therefore satisfied and finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith within 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 Clive Duncan Thorne
Sole Panelist
Date: February 8, 2021
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy