ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Turk Hava Yollari Anonim Ortakligi v. Nanci Nette, Name Management Group Case No. DCO2024-0083 1. The Parties The Complainant is Turk Hava Yollari Anonim Ortakligi, Türkiye, represented by Turkticaret.net Yazilim Hizmetleri Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S., Türkiye. The Respondent is Nanci Nette, Name Management Group, United States of America (“US”). 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name is registered with Dynadot Inc (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on November 7, 2024. On November 7, 2024, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On November 8, 2024, 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 (Private Whois) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on the same day, 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 amendment to the Complaint on November 12, 2024. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to 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 November 13, 2024. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was December 3, 2024. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on December 4, 2024.
page 2 The Center appointed Tobias Malte Müller as the sole panelist in this matter on December 10, 2024. 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 the national airline of Türkiye and operates since 1933. It operates its business via the website “www.turkishairlines.com”. It results from the undisputed evidence submitted by the Complainant, that it owns amongst others the International trademark no 912323 for TURKISH AIRLINES INC., registered on April 3, 2006, for goods and services in classes 12, 35, 36, 37, 39 and 41, protection granted amongst others for the US, where the Respondent appears to be located. This mark has duly been renewed and is in force. In addition, the Complainant bases its Complaint on further national Turkish trademarks including the Turkish trademark registration no 96/006733 for TURKISH AIRLINES registered on June 16, 1997. The Respondent registered the disputed domain name on March 4, 2022. The evidence submitted by the Complainant and not disputed by the Respondent further shows that the disputed domain name currently resolves to a parking page with Pay-Per-Click (PPC) links in the Complainant’s area of activity and in particular using the Complainant’s trademark, e.g., “TURKISH AIRLINES TICKETS” or “TURKISH AIRLINES”. The Complainant further evidenced that these links do not resolve to any of its official websites or websites that are connected to the Complainant. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the disputed domain name. Notably, the Complainant contends that: (1) According to the Complainant, the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its trademarks; (2) The Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. It is obvious to the Complainant that the fame of the Complainant’s trademark motivated the Respondent to register the disputed domain name. The current use further misleads users. Having domain names owned by people other than the brand owner will leave brand open to fake websites and phishing incidents that may be created in the future; (3) The disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Respondent is not using the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Instead, the Respondent has deliberately chosen the disputed domain name based on a registered trademark to benefit from the fame of the Complainant's trademark. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
page 3 6. Discussion and Findings Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to “decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable”. Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires a complainant to prove each of the following three elements in order to obtain an order that the disputed domain name be transferred or cancelled: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; (ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; (iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. The Panel will therefore proceed to analyze whether the three elements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy are satisfied. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. The standing (or threshold) test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name, WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition, (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.7. The Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trademark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1. The Panel finds the disputed domain name is identical to the mark TURKISH AIRLINES and is confusingly similar to the TURKISH AIRLINES INC. mark as it is recognizable within the disputed domain name. In fact, only the last part of the trademark. i.e., “INC.” is not reflected within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7. The Panel finds the first element of the Policy has been established. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances in which the Respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name. Although the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, panels have recognized that proving a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the difficult task of “proving a negative”, requiring information that is often primarily within the knowledge or control of the respondent. As such, where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name (although the burden of proof always remains on the complainant). If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element, WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.1. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent has not rebutted the Complainant’s prima facie showing and has not come forward with any relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise.
page 4 Moreover, the Panel notes that the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s TURKISH AIRLINES trademark and contains almost the entirety of the trademark TURKISH AIRLINES INC., except for the last part (INC.), and the Complainant operates its business via the website “www.turkishairlines.com”, so that this Panel finds it most likely that these signal an intention on the part of the Respondent to confuse users seeking or expecting the Complainant. Furthermore, it results from the undisputed evidence before the Panel that the disputed domain name resolves to a parking website comprising PPC links that compete with or capitalize on the reputation and goodwill of the Complainant’s trademark or otherwise mislead Internet users (i.e., a parking page displaying PPC links in the Complainant’s area of activity). The Complainant further evidenced that these links do not resolve to any of its official websites or websites that are connected to the Complainant. Prior UDRP panels have found that the use of a domain name to host a parked page comprising PPC links does not represent bona fide offering of goods or services, where such links compete with or capitalize on the reputation and goodwill of the complainant’s mark or otherwise mislead Internet users (see WIPO Overview 3.0 at section 2.9, with further references). This Panel shares this view. Such use can neither be considered as bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue. The Panel finds the second element of the Policy has been established. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel notes that, for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, paragraph 4(b) of the Policy establishes circumstances, in particular, but without limitation, that, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith. One of these circumstances is that the Respondent by using the disputed domain name, has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of its website or location or of a product or service on its website or location (paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy). In the present case, the Panel notes that it results from the Complainant’s documented allegations that the disputed domain name resolved to a parking page displaying PPC links in the Complainant’s area of activity and in particular using the Complainant’s trademark, e.g., “TURKISH AIRLINES TICKETS” or “TURKISH AIRLINES”. The Complainant further evidenced that these links do not resolve to any of its official websites or websites that are connected to the Complainant. For the Panel, it is therefore evident that the Respondent positively knew the Complainant’s mark. Consequently, and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the Panel is convinced that the Respondent also knew that the disputed domain name includes the Complainant’s trademark and is almost identical to the Complainant’s domain name when it registered the disputed domain name. Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out a list of non-exhaustive circumstances that may indicate that a domain name was registered and used in bad faith, but other circumstances may be relevant in assessing whether a respondent’s registration and use of a domain name is in bad faith, WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.2.1. In this regard, the further circumstances surrounding the disputed domain name’s registration and use confirm the findings that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith: (i) the nature of the disputed domain name, being identical to the Complainant’s trademark; (ii) the content of the website to which the disputed domain name directed (i.e., a parking page displaying PPC links in the Complainant’s area of activity and redirection to a competing website);
page 5 (iii) a clear absence of rights or legitimate interests coupled with no response for the Respondent’s choice of the disputed domain name. The Panel finds that the Complainant has established 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 the Complainant. /Tobias Malte Müller/ Tobias Malte Müller Sole Panelist Date: December 24, 2024
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy