Case No. D2014-1096 The Parties




Yüklə 23.45 Kb.
tarix04.03.2016
ölçüsü23.45 Kb.




ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER



ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Global Bilgi Pazarlama Danişma ve Çağri Servisi Hizmetleri Anonim Şirketi v. Behzat Cemal AKGÜN

Case No. D2014-1096



1. The Parties

The Complainant is Global Bilgi Pazarlama Danişma ve Çağri Servisi Hizmetleri Anonim Şirketi of Istanbul, Turkey, represented by Net Koruma Danışmanlık Hizmetleri, Turkey.


The Respondent is Behzat Cemal AKGÜN of Istanbul, Turkey.


2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name is registered with Name115, Inc. (the “Registrar”).




3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on June 24, 2014. On June 24, 2014, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On June 24, 2014, 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.


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(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on July 1, 2014. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was July 21, 2014. The Center received an informal email communication from the Respondent on July 1, 2014. The Respondent did not submit any formal response. On July 1, 2014, the Center received a Supplemental Filing from the Complainant. Accordingly, the Center notified the parties about the commencement of the panel appointment process on July 22, 2014.
The Center appointed Emre Kerim Yardimci as the sole panelist in this matter on August 4, 2014. 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 operates as customer relation management and call center since its incorporation in 1999 and is part of the Turkcell Group Company, one of the leading GSM-based mobile operators in Turkey. The Complainant claims that with its 10,000 employees, 21 centers in Turkey, Ukraine and Belarus it is leader of the Turkish Contact Center with market share of 45% and is listed among the top 500 companies of Turkey.



The Complainant is the owner of the trademark GLOBAL BİLGİ (device) since May 4, 2000 with the registration number 2000 08595 and of the domain names , and .


The Respondent is a physical person and it appears that the website, to which the disputed domain name resolves, seems not to offer any genuine services.



5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s registered trademark, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith to prevent the Complainant acquiring it.


B. Respondent

The Respondent did not formally reply to the Complainant’s contentions. However, the Respondent replied to the Center’s email communication of July 1, 2014 by simply stating “Turkish Please”. The Panel is of the opinion that this statement cannot be considered as a formally valid objection to the Complaint (also see Section 6.1).



6. Discussion and Findings
6.1 Language of the Proceedings
Pursuant to paragraph 11(a) of the Rules, unless otherwise agreed by the parties, or specified otherwise in the registration agreement, the language of the administrative proceeding shall be the language of the registration agreement. The Registrar has confirmed that the registration agreement is in English. The Complaint was filed in English. Accordingly, the Center sent out its notification of complaint and commencement of administrative proceeding in English. In the absence of any formal Response from the Respondent, in either English or Turkish, the Panel considers that the appropriate language of proceedings is English.
6.2. Effect of the Default
Paragraph 14(b) of the Rules provides that, in the absence of exceptional circumstances, a panel shall draw such inferences as it considers appropriate from a failure of a party to comply with a provision or requirement of the Rules.
As there are no exceptional circumstances for the failure of the Respondent to submit a formal Response, the Panel infers that the Respondent does not deny the facts asserted and contentions made by the Complainant. Therefore, asserted facts that are not unreasonable will be taken as true and the Respondent will be subject to the inferences that flow naturally from the information provided by the Complainant. Reuters Limited v. Global Net 2000, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2000-0441.
6.3. Analysis of the Complaint
Pursuant to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant is required to prove the presence of each of the following three elements to obtain the remedy it has requested:
(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; and
(iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is identical to the textual parts of the Complainant’s GLOBAL BILGI (device) trademark. The Panel finds that the hyphen “-” sign between two identical components “global” and “bilgi” does not change the fact that the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s registered trademark.



B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Complainant has alleged that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name that contains in its entirety the Complainant’s GLOBAL BILGI trademark.


The Complainant has made a prima facie case in support of its allegations and, therefore, the burden of production shifts to the Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimates interests in the disputed domain name, according to paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions and, therefore, did not submit any evidence of rights or legitimate interests over the disputed domain name.
With respect to paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy, there is no evidence that the Respondent, before any notice of the dispute, used or prepared to use the disputed domain name or a name corresponding to the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services.
With respect to paragraph 4(c)(ii) of the Policy, there is no evidence that indicates that the Respondent has ever been commonly known by the disputed domain name.
With respect to paragraph 4(c)(iii) of the Policy, based on the case record it seems that the Respondent has not made and is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name and has not used the disputed domain name, or a name corresponding to it, in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. At the time this Decision is issued, the disputed domain name is used to host a website showing pay-per-click advertising.
In view of the above, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established the second condition of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Panel finds that the Respondent has intentionally registered the disputed domain name, which totally reproduces the textual parts of the Complainant’s trademark GLOBAL BİLGİ. By the time the disputed domain name was registered, it is unlikely that the Respondent did not have knowledge of the Complainant’s rights in the trademark GLOBAL BİLGİ.


The Complainant’s allegations of bad faith are not contested. The evidence provided by the Complainant suggests that it has been using its GLOBAL BİLGİ trademark long before the disputed domain name was registered. In the circumstances of this case, the Panel finds that the Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant’s rights in the trademark when it registered the disputed domain name.
Also, under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy, it is evidence of bad faith that, “by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your web site or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your website or location or of a product or service on your website or location.”
The Panel notes that the content of the disputed name has varied in the recent past. First, it was a website showing pay-per-click advertising. Secondly, the content of the disputed domain name changed to a “WHOIS Search domain name” website as described by the Complainant in its Supplementing Filing. Thirdly, the disputed domain name redirected to “www.craftcws.com” website containing general menus in Turkish such as “home page”, “settings”, “FAQ”, etc. and apparently allowing to purchase domain names. At the time of this Decision, the disputed domain name is redirected to “www.craftcws.com” website which appears to be completely blank and has no content.
The Panel considers such use of the disputed domain name to suggest bad faith on the part of the Respondent and its intention to attract Internet users for commercial gain, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent’s website or of a product or service on the Respondent’s website.
In light of these circumstances, the Panel finds the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith in the terms of paragraph 4(b)(i) and paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.
The Complainant has established the third element of paragraph 4(a) 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.



Emre Kerim Yardimci

Sole Panelist



Date: August 18, 2014



Verilənlər bazası müəlliflik hüququ ilə müdafiə olunur ©www.azrefs.org 2016
rəhbərliyinə müraciət

    Ana səhifə