About Intellectual Property IP Training IP Outreach IP for… IP and... IP in... Patent & Technology Information Trademark Information Industrial Design Information Geographical Indication Information Plant Variety Information (UPOV) IP Laws, Treaties & Judgements IP Resources IP Reports Patent Protection Trademark Protection Industrial Design Protection Geographical Indication Protection Plant Variety Protection (UPOV) IP Dispute Resolution IP Office Business Solutions Paying for IP Services Negotiation & Decision-Making Development Cooperation Innovation Support Public-Private Partnerships The Organization Working with WIPO Accountability Patents Trademarks Industrial Designs Geographical Indications Copyright Trade Secrets WIPO Academy Workshops & Seminars World IP Day WIPO Magazine Raising Awareness Case Studies & Success Stories IP News WIPO Awards Business Universities Indigenous Peoples Judiciaries Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Traditional Cultural Expressions Economics Gender Equality Global Health Climate Change Competition Policy Sustainable Development Goals Enforcement Frontier Technologies Mobile Applications Sports Tourism PATENTSCOPE Patent Analytics International Patent Classification ARDI – Research for Innovation ASPI – Specialized Patent Information Global Brand Database Madrid Monitor Article 6ter Express Database Nice Classification Vienna Classification Global Design Database International Designs Bulletin Hague Express Database Locarno Classification Lisbon Express Database Global Brand Database for GIs PLUTO Plant Variety Database GENIE Database WIPO-Administered Treaties WIPO Lex - IP Laws, Treaties & Judgments WIPO Standards IP Statistics WIPO Pearl (Terminology) WIPO Publications Country IP Profiles WIPO Knowledge Center WIPO Technology Trends Global Innovation Index World Intellectual Property Report PCT – The International Patent System ePCT Budapest – The International Microorganism Deposit System Madrid – The International Trademark System eMadrid Article 6ter (armorial bearings, flags, state emblems) Hague – The International Design System eHague Lisbon – The International System of Appellations of Origin and Geographical Indications eLisbon UPOV PRISMA Mediation Arbitration Expert Determination Domain Name Disputes Centralized Access to Search and Examination (CASE) Digital Access Service (DAS) WIPO Pay Current Account at WIPO WIPO Assemblies Standing Committees Calendar of Meetings WIPO Official Documents Development Agenda Technical Assistance IP Training Institutions COVID-19 Support National IP Strategies Policy & Legislative Advice Cooperation Hub Technology and Innovation Support Centers (TISC) Technology Transfer Inventor Assistance Program WIPO GREEN WIPO's Pat-INFORMED Accessible Books Consortium WIPO for Creators WIPO ALERT Member States Observers Director General Activities by Unit External Offices Job Vacancies Procurement Results & Budget Financial Reporting Oversight

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Koçtaş Yapi Marketleri Ticaret A.S. v. Serkan Kirisler

Case No. D2013-0893

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Koçtaş Yapi Marketleri Ticaret A.S. of Istanbul, Turkey, represented by Istanbul Patent & Trademark Consultancy Ltd., Turkey.

The Respondent is Serkan Kirisler of Istanbul, Turkey.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <koctas.pro> is registered with Click Registrar, Inc. d/b/a publicdomainregistry.com (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on May 22, 2013. On May 22, 2013, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On May 25, 2013, 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.

On June 3, 2013, the Center sent an email communication to the Complainant inviting it to amend the Complaint, namely paragraph 9, relating to the Complainant’s submission to one (or two) appropriate mutual jurisdiction(s) with respect to any challenges that may be made by the Respondent to a decision by the Administrative Panel to transfer or cancel the disputed domain name. The Complainant confirmed its submission on June 7, 2013.

On June 4, 2013, the Center advised the Registrar that the Center had noted that the disputed domain name is set to expire on August 8, 2013, and requested the Registrar to confirm that: (1) the domain name will be placed in Registrar lock status after the lapse of the expiry date until the UDRP proceedings are concluded; and (2) whether any action is required by the parties to keep the domain name under Registrar lock so that the administrative procedure can continue as required under the UDRP. The Registrar replied to the Center on June 5, 2013, stating that in order to keep the domain name active against expiry and deletion it must be renewed before the expiry date of the disputed domain name. On June 6, 2013, the Center wrote to the Complainant and to the Respondent to contact the Registrar and to confirm to the Center when the necessary arrangements are made with the Registrar to ensure that the disputed domain name remains active. On June 6, 2013, the Registrar wrote to the Center confirming that the disputed domain name will be renewed if either the Complainant or the Respondent requests so.

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 June 10, 2013. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was June 30, 2013. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on July 1, 2013.

The Center appointed Gökhan Gökçe as the sole panelist in this matter on July 9, 2013. 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 was established in 1996 and belongs to Koç Holding A.Ş., one of Turkey’s top industrial conglomerates. It is one of the leading companies in the Turkish “do-it-yourself” (DIY) home renovation market. It operates about 30 stores in 18 Turkish provinces.

The Complainant owns and uses the trademark KOÇTAŞ and has registered a number of trademarks incorporating the word “koçtaş” as evidenced in the annexes to the Complaint. The first KOÇTAŞ trademark (no. 197425) was applied for before the Turkish Patent Institute on April 2, 1998 and registered on July 7, 1999 in Nice class 02. Since then the Complainant has registered numerous KOÇTAŞ and KOÇTAŞ-figurative trademarks in various classes.

The Complainant is also the owner of several domain names which incorporate its trademark. The Complainant registered <koctas.com> and <koctas.com.tr> in 1996 and has been operating these website since.

The Respondent registered the disputed domain name on August 8, 2012. The Panel visited the disputed domain name on July 20, 2013, and observed that the disputed domain name does not resolve to an active website.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

In accordance with paragraph 4(i) of the Policy, the Complainant requests that the disputed domain name be transferred to the Complainant. The Complainant submits the grounds for these proceedings listed in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.

Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Complainant submits that it has numerous trademarks incorporating its trademark KOÇTAŞ registered in 1999, and that it is the owner of the domain names <koctas.com>, <koctas.com.tr> registered in 1996 and <koçtaş.com> in 2006ç as evidenced in the annexes of the Complaint.

“Koçtaş” is also the trade name of the Complainant.

The Complainant claims that the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s trademark as it wholly incorporates “koçtaş” and that the disputed domain name likely originates from the Complainant’s trademark KOÇTAŞ which the Complainant has been continuously using since 1996.

The Complainant cites Koçtaş Yapi Marketleri Ticaret A.S. v. Yavuz Bayyigit / Omer Faruk Aksakalli, WIPO Case No. D2011-1278 and Koçtaş Yapi Marketleri Ticaret A.S. v. Orhan İzgin, WIPO Case No. D2012-2245 in which the panel acknowledged the Complainant’s trademark and trade name rights in KOÇTAŞ and its well-known status.

Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Complainant states that it has never granted the Respondent a license or permission to use or to apply for a domain name incorporating KOÇTAŞ. The Complainant further states that the Respondent is not associated with or permitted by the Complainant to use its mark. The Complainant notes that it has prior rights in KOÇTAŞ which precede the Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name.

The Complainant asserts that the Respondent has not been commonly known by the disputed domain name and that the Respondent does not have any trademarks or service marks in the disputed domain name.

The Complainant further asserts that KOÇTAŞ is a famous trademark which the Respondent is likely aware of as it is a Turkish individual/entity located in Turkey. The Complainant alleges that the Respondent’s reason for registering the disputed domain name is either to confuse Internet users for its own benefit and profit or to sell the disputed domain name to the Complainant for commercial gain.

The Complainant claims that it could not register the disputed domain name because of the unavailability and that the Respondent was fully aware of the Complainant’s rights in KOÇTAŞ at the time of registration.

Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Complainant claims that the Respondent knew the Complainant’s trademarks at the time of registration of the disputed domain name and argues that registration and use of a domain name incorporating a famous mark is necessarily in bad faith where a respondent knew at the time of the registration that he could not make any actual use of the registered domain name without infringing on the trademark owner’s rights.

The Complainant asserts that the Respondent must have known that KOÇTAŞ is a registered and protected trademark of the Complainant and that this is a strong indication that the Respondent intended to create an association with the Complainant.

The Complainant further asserts that bad faith is shown by the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name or lack thereof. The Complainant states that the Respondent has not placed any content on the website to which the disputed domain name resolves that relates to a business or has been created by the Respondent.

B. Respondent

The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

As the Respondent has not filed a Response, the Panel may decide the dispute based on the Complaint and may accept all factual allegations as true. The Panel may also draw appropriate inferences from the Respondent’s default, Talk City, Inc. v. Michael Robertson, WIPO Case No. D2000-0009.

According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the following three elements must be proven by the Complainant, to merit a finding that the disputed domain name be transferred to the Complainant:

(a) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and

(b) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disupted domain name; and

(c) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Policy requires the Complainant to demonstrate that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights. The Panel is satisfied that the Complainant is the owner of the trademark KOÇTAŞ as evidenced in the annexes to the Complaint and Turkish Patent Institute records. Further, while not dispositive under the first element, the Panel notes the Complainant has registered a number of domain names incorporating its trademark KOÇTAŞ which have been in use since 1996.

In relation to the disputed domain name, it is clear that the disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s trademark KOÇTAŞ with the letters “ç” and “ş” used without cedillas. In the Panel’s opinion, such use of the letters “ç” and “ş” without cedillas in the disputed domain name does not render the latter visually distintinctive of the Complainant’s trademark. The Panel also finds that the addition of the “.pro” extension is irrelevant when determining whether the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark, PRL USA Holdings, Inc. v. Spiral Matrix, WIPO Case No. D2010-1941. It has been stated in several decisions by other UDRP panels that the incorporation of a trademark in its entirety into a domain name may be sufficient to establish that the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a registered trademark, Bayerische Motoren Werke AG, Sauber Motorsport AG v. Petaluma Auto Works, WIPO Case No. D2005-0941. The Panel recognizes the Complainant’s rights and concludes that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s KOÇTAŞ trademark.

The Panel finds that the requirements in paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy are fulfilled, consequently, the Panel finds for the Complainant on the first element of the Policy.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

In accordance with paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. It is established in numerous UDRP decisions that it is difficult for a complainant to prove a negative and for that reason the Complainant is required to make out an initial prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, Belupo d.d. v. WACHEM d.o.o., WIPO Case No. D2004-0110. Once the Complainant makes a prima facie case, the burden of demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name shifts to the Respondent. The Policy at paragraph 4(c) provides various ways in which the Respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. If the Respondent fails to do so, the Complainant is generally deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

The Complainant claims that it has never granted the Respondent a license or permission to use or to apply for a domain name incorporating KOÇTAŞ; the Respondent is not associated with or permitted by the Complainant to use its mark; the Respondent has not been commonly known by the disputed domain name; the Respondent does not have any trademarks or service marks in the disputed domain name. The Complainant alleges the Respondent’s reason for registering the disputed domain name is either to confuse Internet users for its own benefit and profit or to sell the disputed domain name to the Complainant for commercial gain. The Complainant further claims that it could not register the disputed domain name because of the unavailability and that the Respondent was fully aware of the Complainant’s rights in KOÇTAŞ at the time of registration.

The Panel finds that there is no evidence to suggest that the Respondent has any rights in any trademarks or service marks which are identical, similar or related to the disputed domain name. The Panel accepts that the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, even if the Respondent has acquired no trademark or service mark rights.

The Panel visited the disputed domain name on July 20, 2013 and found that the disputed domain name does not resolve to a website. Therefore, the Panel finds that the Respondent is not making use of the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name.

There is no evidence that the Respondent has made any effort or has any intention to use the disputed domain name for any purpose or legitimate activity consistent with having rights or legitimate interests. Therefore, the Panel infers that there is no intention of legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name, without intent for commercial gain or to misleadingly divert consumers.

Paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy requires the Complainant to prove that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent did not submit a response and therefore the Panel concludes that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

The requirements of 4(a)(ii) of the Policy are fulfilled and consequently the Panel finds in favor of the Complainant on the second element of the Policy.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

Finally, the Complainant must show that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith under paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.

Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy provides a non-exhaustive list of circumstances that, if found by a panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith:

(i) circumstances indicating that the respondent has registered or acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of your documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or

(ii) the respondent has registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that the respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or

(iii) the respondent has registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or

(iv) by using the domain name, the respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the respondent’s 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 the respondent’s website or location or of a product or service on the respondent's website or location.

The Complainant has been using its trademark KOÇTAŞ since 1996 and has registered numerous KOÇTAŞ and KOÇTAŞ-formative trademarks incorporating since 1999. Further, as stated in previous decisions issued under the Policy, the Complainant is well known and widely recognized in Turkey, Koçtaş Yapi Marketleri Ticaret A.S. v. Yavuz Bayyigit / Omer Faruk Aksakalli, WIPO Case No. D2011-1278 and Koçtaş Yapi Marketleri Ticaret A.S. v. Orhan İzgin, WIPO Case No. D2012-2245. On the other hand, the disputed domain name was registered in 2012 and the Respondent appears to be a Turkish individual located in Turkey. As the Complainant’s trademark which is incorporated in the disputed domain name was registered and used well before the Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain nameç the Panel is of the opinion that it is highly unlikely that the Respondent was unaware of the Complainant’s trademark KOÇTAŞ at the time the disputed domain name was registered. Thus, the Panel finds that the Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant’s trademark at the time of registration. The Panel, in accordance with previous decisions issued under the Policy, is of the opinion that actual knowledge of the Complainant’s trademark at the time of registration of the disputed domain name is to be considered as an inference of bad faith, Parfums Christian Dior v. Javier Garcia Quintas and Christiandior.net, WIPO Case No. D2000-0226.

Further, as confirmed by the express mail service, the Respondent has provided an incorrect address and phone number to the Registrar. The provision of false information on applying for a domain name registration has been held to constitute bad faith, Ticketmaster Corporation v. Dmitri Prem, WIPO Case No. D2000-1550. In this case, the Panel finds that the Respondent’s provision of false contact information and failure to respond to the Complaint reinforces the inference of bad faith registration and bad faith use, The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited v. Bill Lynn, WIPO Case No. D2001-0915.

The Panel visited the disputed domain names on July 20, 2013, and observed that the disputed domain name does not resolve to an active website. In light of the facts that (i) the Complainant’s trademark has a strong reputation and is widely known in Turkey, (ii) the disputed domain name was registered well after the registration and use of the Complainant’s trademark, (iii) the Respondent has provided no evidence whatsoever of any actual or contemplated good faith use by it of the disputed domain name, (iv) the Respondent did not respond to the Complaint, and that (v) the address and phone number of the Respondent as contained in the public WhoIs and as confirmed by the Registrar has been identified as incorrect by the express mail service, the Panel is of the opinion that the passive holding of the disputed domain name by the Respondent amounts to the Respondent acting in bad faith, Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No. D2000-0003.

After examining all circumstances surrounding the registration and use of the disputed domain name, the Panel finds that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. Accordingly the Panel finds in favor of the Complainant on 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 <koctas.pro> be transferred to the Complainant.

Gökhan Gökçe
Sole Panelist
Date: July 23, 2013

https://www3.wipo.int/contact/en/area.jsp?area=arbitration https://www.wipo.int/pressroom/en/ https://www.wipo.int/tools/en/disclaim.html https://www.wipo.int/en/web/privacy-policy/ https://www.wipo.int/en/web/accessibility/ https://www.wipo.int/tools/en/sitemap.html https://www3.wipo.int/newsletters/en/ https://www.wipo.int/podcasts/en/ https://www.wipo.int/news/en/