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

Franke Technology and Trademark Ltd v. Gemlik Web Tasarim

Case No. D2016-0663

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Franke Technology and Trademark Ltd of Hergiswil, Switzerland, represented by BrandIT GmbH, Switzerland.

The Respondent is Gemlik Web Tasarim of Bursa, Turkey.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <franketeknikservisi.com> is registered with Nics Telekomünikasyon Ticaret Ltd. Şti. (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint in English was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on April 5, 2016. On April 5, 2016, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On April 5, 2016, 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, and stating that Turkish was the language of the Registration Agreement for the disputed domain name <franketeknikservisi.com>. The Center sent an email communication to the Parties on April 12, 2016, requesting the Complainant to provide satisfactory evidence of an agreement between the Complainant and the Respondent to the effect that the proceedings should be in English; or, submit the Complaint translated into Turkish; or, submit a request for English to be the language of the administrative proceeding. The Respondent was also invited to make submissions in this regard. On April 15, 2016, the Complainant made a request that English be the language of the administrative proceeding.

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 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on April 20, 2016. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was May 10, 2016. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on May 11, 2016.

The Center appointed Kaya Köklü as the sole panelist in this matter on May 25, 2016. 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 belongs to the Franke Group, which has more than 70 subsidiaries with around 9,000 employees in 37 countries. Among various sectors, it is particularly known for its products in the kitchen appliance sector.

The Complainant has registered the word and figurative trademark FRANKE in several classes in many jurisdictions, including Turkey. The first trademark covering protection in Turkey was registered in 1992 and, hence, many years before the registration of the disputed domain name.

The Complainant has further registered and operates the trademark FRANKE as domain names under several generic Top-Level Domains (“gTLD”) and country-code Top-Level Domains (“ccTLD”) worldwide, e.g., <franke.com> and <franke.com.tr>.

According to the current record, the disputed domain name <franketeknikservisi.com> was created on November 1, 2013.

At the time of the decision, the disputed domain name resolves to a website offering technical services for the Complainant’s household products. On the website linked to the disputed domain name, the Complainant’s word and figurative FRANKE trademark is prominently used in the heading. Furthermore, there is a link on the webite indicating that the disputed domain name is for sale.

As evidenced by the Complainant, the Respondent did not reply to an attempt of the Complainant to solve this dispute inter partes before initiating the present administrative proceedings.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant requests the transfer of the disputed domain name.

The Complainant is of the opinion that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s FRANKE trademark.

The Complainant argues that the only difference between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s trademark is that the disputed domain name additionally comprises the Turkish terms “teknik” (in English language: “technical”) and “servisi” (in English language: “service for”). The Complainant is of the opinion that the addition of these generic terms does not negate the confusing similarity with its FRANKE trademark.

Furthermore, the Complainant argues that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. In particular, the Complainant states that the Complainant has never granted a permission or license to the Respondent to use its FRANKE trademark. The Complainant further alleges that the Respondent has never used and does not intend to use its trademarks in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services.

Finally, it is argued that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. The Complainant is of the opinion that the Respondent apparently tries to create the impression that it is the Complainant.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

The Panel determines in accordance with the Complainant’s request and the Rules, paragraph 11(a), that the language of these administrative proceedings shall be the English language. Although the language of the Registration Agreement is the Turkish language, the Panel finds that it would be inappropriate, given the circumstances of this case, to conduct the proceedings in Turkish and request a costly Turkish translation of the Complaint while the Respondent has failed to raise any objection or even to respond to the Complaint or respond to the Center’s communication with regard to the language of the proceedings, even though communicated in Turkish and in English.

According to paragraphs 14(a) and 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 and on the basis of the Complaint where no Response has been submitted.

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 the trademarks 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 Complaint. 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. Belupo d.d. v. WACHEM d.o.o., WIPO Case No. D2004-0110.

It is further noted that the Panel has taken note of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition (“WIPO Overview 2.0”) and, where appropriate, will decide consistent with the WIPO Overview 2.0.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the FRANKE trademark of the Complainant.

First, the Panel confirms that the Complainant has satisfied the threshold requirement of having trademark rights in FRANKE. As evidenced in the Complaint, the Complainant is the owner of a large number of word and figurative trademarks with regard to the FRANKE mark in many jurisdictions worldwide, including Turkey.

Although not identical, the disputed domain name fully incorporates the Complainant’s FRANKE trademark.

The disputed domain name differs from the Complainant’s trademarks only by the addition of the generic Turkish terms “teknik” and “servisi”, meaning “technical“ and “service for” in English. The Panel shares the view of the Complainant that the addition of such generic terms does not negate the confusing similarity between the Complainant’s trademark FRANKE and the disputed domain name. The Panel finds that this additional incorporation is purely descriptive and does not create a new distinctiveness separate from the Complainant’s FRANKE trademark. Quite the opposite, the full inclusion of the Complainant’s trademark in combination with the generic terms “teknik” and “servisi”, which directly relate to technical assistance provided by the Complainant for its products in Turkey, even enhances the false impression that the disputed domain name is officially related to the Complainant. The Panel concludes that the disputed domain name is likely to confuse Internet users in their believing that the disputed domain name is affiliated or endorsed by the Complainant or that the use of the disputed domain name is at least authorized by the Complainant.

In view of the above, the Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has met the requirements under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Panel further finds that the Respondent has not demonstrated any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

While the burden of proof remains with the Complainant, the Panel recognizes that this would often result in the impossible task of proving a negative, in particular as the evidence needed to show the Respondent’s lack of rights or legitimate interests is 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 of evidence 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. 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 convincing argument to demonstrate a right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name according to the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(ii) and 4(c).

With its Complaint, the Complainant has provided uncontested prima facie evidence that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests to use the Complainant’s FRANKE trademark in the disputed domain name.

According to paragraph 2.3 of the WIPO Overview 2.0, it is the consensus view among UDRP panelists that “a reseller or distributor can be making a bona fide offering of goods and services and thus have a legitimate interest in the domain name if its use meets certain requirements”. It is stated that “these requirements normally include the actual offering of goods and services at issue, the use of the site to sell only the trademarked goods, and the site’s accurately and prominently disclosing the registrant’s relationship with the trademark holder”.

In view of the Panel, these requirements also apply mutatis mutandis to repair services offered for products of third parties if the trademarks of these products are part of a domain name.

As evidenced by the provided screenshots of the website linked to the disputed domain name in the case file, the Respondent particularly failed in accurately and prominently disclosing the lack of relationship with the Complainant. Quite the opposite, the design and appearance of the website linked to the disputed domain name rather causes the impression that the Respondent is an official or at least authorized repair service of the Complainant in Turkey.

In the absence of a Response, the Respondent has failed to demonstrate any of the other nonexclusive circumstances evidencing rights or legitimate interests under the Policy, paragraph 4(c) or any other evidence of a right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name.

Consequently, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Panel is further convinced that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.

The Panel is of the opinion that the Respondent intentionally attempted to create a likelihood of confusion among customers and/or to tarnish the Complainant’s FRANKE trademark, apparently for commercial gain or any other illegitimate benefit.

First, the Panel believes that the Respondent was well aware of the Complainant’s trademarks when it registered the disputed domain name on November 1, 2013. At the date of registration of the disputed domain name, the Complainant’s FRANKE trademark was already well-known worldwide, including in Turkey, for many years.

Second, the Respondent preferred not to respond to the Complainant’s contentions, although being informed of the pending administrative proceedings by email and courier in Turkish and English language.

Third, the design of the website linked to the disputed domain name clearly creates the impression that the Respondent is the Complainant, which is apparently not true.

Lastly, the Panel believes that offering the disputed domain name for sale is under the current circumstances of this case another strong indication for the Respondent’s bad faith intentions.

All in all, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith and that the Complainant consequently has 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 <franketeknikservisi.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

Kaya Köklü
Sole Panelist
Date: June 6, 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/