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

Mor Çatı Women's Shelter Foundation v. Joakim Blomqvist

Case No. D2016-0175

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Mor Çatı Women's Shelter Foundation of Istanbul, Turkey, internally represented.

The Respondent is Joakim Blomqvist of Vargarda, Sweden.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <morcati.org> (the "Domain Name") is registered with eNom, Inc. (the "Registrar").

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on January 28, 2016. The Center transmitted its request for registrar verification to the Registrar the same day. The Registrar replied the same day stating that the Domain Name had been placed under a locked status to prevent any transfers or changes during these proceedings and that the registration agreement was in English and required the registrant to consent to the jurisdiction of the courts in Kings County, Washington. The Registrar also provided the full contact details held on its WhoIs database in respect of the Domain Name, which confirmed that the Respondent is the registrant.

The Center notified the Complainant on February 1, 2016, that the Complaint was administratively deficient in that it did not describe why the Domain Name should be regarded as having been registered and used in bad faith by the Respondent. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on February 4, 2016.

The Center verified that 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 paragraphs 2 and 4 of the Rules, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on February 5, 2016. In accordance with paragraph 5 of the Rules, the due date for Response was February 25, 2016. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on February 26, 2016.

The Center appointed Jonathan Turner as the sole panelist in this matter on March 1, 2016. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with paragraph 7 of the Rules.

Having reviewed the file, the Panel is satisfied that the amended Complaint complied with applicable formal requirements, was duly notified to the Respondent and has been submitted to a properly constituted Panel in accordance with the UDRP, the Rules and the Supplemental Rules.

Since the language of the Registration Agreement was English, under paragraph 11 of the Rules the proceedings should be in English unless otherwise agreed between the parties or otherwise determined by the Panel. Although the Complainant indicated a preference for Turkish in its Complaint, the Panel considers that it is more convenient to determine the case on the basis of the documents which have been filed primarily in English. The Panel will therefore continue this proceeding in English.

4. Factual Background

The Complainant was formed 25 years ago as the first feminist organization and solidarity center for women in Turkey. It operates an independent women's shelter in Istanbul. It has registered a trademark in Turkey comprising an image and its name, Mor Çati Kadin Siğinaği Vakfi (Mor Çati Women's Shelter Foundation). It has its website at "www.morcati.org.tr".

The Domain Name was created on June 1, 2007, and has been directed to a web page which purports to be for an organization called Mor Çati Kadin Siğinma ve Savunma Vakfi (Mor Çati Women's Refuge and Defense Foundation).

5. Parties' Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to its registered mark. The Complainant states that some women seeking its assistance have arrived at the address on the Respondent's web page.

The Complainant submits that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. The Complainant states that none of the situations set out in paragraph 4(c) of the UDRP applies.

The Complainant alleges that the Respondent registered and is using the Domain Name in bad faith. The Complainant submits that it is highly likely that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant's mark when he registered the Domain Name. According to the Complainant, the Respondent attempts to attract Internet users by creating a likelihood of confusion with its mark. The Complainant emphasizes the problems caused by this confusion for women subjected to violence who need to find the Complainant urgently.

The Complainant requests a decision that the Domain Name be transferred to it.

B. Respondent

As stated above, the Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

In accordance with paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove: (i) that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a mark in which it has rights; (ii) that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and (iii) that the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. It is appropriate to consider each of these requirements in turn.

In accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel shall draw such inferences as it considers appropriate from the Respondent's default in failing to file a response. This includes the acceptance of plausible evidence of the Complainant which has not been disputed.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in its mark containing the words Mor Çati Kadin Siğinaği Vakfi by virtue of registration and longstanding use.

The Panel is also satisfied that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to this mark since the Domain Name consists of the primary distinctive element of the mark (apart from the omission of the space and the cedilla which cannot be included in a domain name) together with the generic Top-Level Domain suffix ".org", which can be discounted since it does not provide any differentiation in the context of a domain name. The Panel accepts the Complainant's evidence that there has been confusion and is in no doubt that women seeking information about the Complainant are liable to be confused by the Domain Name.

The first requirement of the UDRP is satisfied.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Panel accepts the Complainant's undisputed arguments and evidence that the Respondent has not used or made demonstrable preparations to use the Domain Name for any bona fide offering of goods or services; that he is not commonly known by the Domain Name; and that he is not making legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Name.

In all the circumstances, the Panel accepts the Complainant's unchallenged and plausible statement that the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name.

The Panel therefore finds that the second requirement of the UDRP is satisfied.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Panel accepts the Complainant's submission that the Respondent is likely to have known of the Complainant's longstanding prior use of its mark when he registered the Domain Name. Any other explanation for the similarity between the Domain Name and the Complainant's mark would be implausible.

In these circumstances, the Panel finds that in all probability the Domain Name was registered and has been used by the Respondent primarily for the purpose of disrupting the Complainant's activities. In the Panel's view, the registration and use of the Domain Name for this purpose amounts to bad faith for the purpose of the UDRP by analogy with its paragraph 4(b)(iii). Accordingly the Panel concludes that the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

All three substantive requirements of the UDRP are satisfied and it is appropriate to order that the Domain Name be transferred to the Complainant.

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 Domain Name, <morcati.org>, be transferred to the Complainant.

Jonathan Turner
Sole Panelist
Date: March 10, 2016

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/