The Complainant is Seiko Epson Kabushiki Kaisha (also trading as Seiko Epson Corporation), Japan, represented by Demys Limited, United Kingdom.
The Respondent is Yeniteknoloji Bilişim Hiz San Tic Ltd. Şti., 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 March 11, 2021. On March 11, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On March 12, 2021, 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 March 15, 2021 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 March 15, 2021. 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 March 16, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was April 5, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on April 15, 2021. The Center appointed Kaya Köklü as the sole panelist in this matter on April 22, 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 is a Japanese electronics company that manufactures, inter alia, printers and imaging equipment, including but not limited to inkjet and laser printers. The Complainant has registered the word and figurative trademark EPSON covering protection inter alia in classes 9 and 16 in many jurisdictions, including Turkey. According to the case record, the first trademark with protective effect for Turkey was registered in 1999 and, hence, many years before the registration of the disputed domain name. The Complainant has further registered and operates the trademark EPSON as domain names under several generic Top-Level Domains (“gTLDs”) and country-code Top-Level Domains (“ccTLDs”), e.g., According to the current record, the disputed domain name The Respondent is a company from Turkey. The screenshots, as provided by the Complainant (Annex 8 to the Complaint), show that the disputed domain name resolves to a website in Turkish and English language offering ink and other equipment for the Complainant’s Epson printers. On the website at the disputed domain name, the Complainant’s EPSON trademark is prominently used in various forms. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant is of the opinion that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its EPSON 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 between 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 argues that the Respondent must have been well aware of the Complainant’s EPSON trademark when registering the disputed domain name, particularly as the Respondent prominently uses the Complainant’s word and figurative EPSON trademark on the website linked to the disputed domain name without disclosing 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 word and figurative trademark rights in the mark EPSON by virtue of various trademark registrations, including trademark registrations covering protection in Turkey, where the Respondent is located. The Panel further finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered EPSON 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 additions of other terms would generally not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. In the present case, the mere addition of the non-distinctive word “servis” (which is Turkish and means “service” in the English language) and the additional letter “t” does not, in view of the Panel, serve to avoid a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s EPSON 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 EPSON 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 dealer and repair service 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 website which is linked to the disputed domain name does 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 distributor and repair service for the Complainant’s Epson products in Turkey. In the 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 that 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 trademarks in mind when registering the disputed domain name. It 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 Epson printers and related services. After having reviewed the Complainant’s screenshots of the website linked to the disputed domain name (Annex 8 to the Complaint), 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 linked to the disputed domain name and the prominent use of the Complainant’s word and figurative EPSON trademark is sufficient evidence 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 EPSON trademark and the Complainant itself as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of its website. The Panel therefore concludes that the disputed domain name was registered and is 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: May 3, 2021
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy