WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Türk Ticaret Bankası A.Ş. v. Abdurrahman Kilinc

Case No. D2019-3156

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Türk Ticaret Bankası A.Ş., Turkey, represented by İsimtescil Bilişim A.Ş., Turkey.

The Respondent is Abdurrahman Kilinc, Turkey.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <ticaretbankasi.com> is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was initially filed in Turkish with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on December 20, 2019. On December 20, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On December 23, 2019, 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 Registrar indicated that the language of the Registration Agreement was English. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant in English and Turkish on December 24, 2019, inviting the Complainant to provide sufficient evidence of an agreement between the Parties for Turkish to be the language of the proceeding, a Complaint translated into English, or a request for Turkish to be the language of the proceeding. The Complainant filed a Complaint translated into English on January 17, 2020. The Respondent did not comment on the language of the 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 January 21, 2020. On January 27, 2020, the Center received an email communication in Turkish from the Respondent and on February 10, 2020, the Respondent once again sent a communication to the Center this time in English. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was February 10, 2020. The Respondent did not submit any formal response. Accordingly, the Center notified to the Parties that it was proceeding to the panel appointment stage on February 19, 2020.

The Center appointed Emre Kerim Yardimci as the sole panelist in this matter on February 25, 2020. 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 a Turkish bank established in the beginning of the 20th century and it offers a wide range of banking products to individuals and businesses.

The Complainant has been using the Turkish trademark TÜRK TİCARET BANKASI A.Ş. “TÜRKBANK İKİNCİ ADRESİNİZ”, registration no. 2005/17067 and registered on May 4, 2005.

The Complainant holds several domain names incorporating “ticaret bankasi”, the oldest being registered in 2018.

The disputed domain name was registered on March 31, 2009. According to the current record, the Respondent appears to be an individual domiciled in Turkey. The disputed domain name does not now resolve to an active website.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name is identical or at least confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark TÜRK TİCARET BANKASI A.Ş. “TÜRKBANK İKİNCİ ADRESİNİZ”.

The Complainant considers that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, mainly because the Complainant has neither licensed nor otherwise authorized the Respondent to use its marks or to apply for or use any domain name incorporating its trademark.

Finally, in addressing the question of registration and use of the disputed domain name in bad faith, the Complainant observes that the Respondent, being resident of the same country where the Complainant is domiciled, could not have ignored the Complainant’s well-known mark and registered the disputed domain name with the Complainant in mind.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

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

Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires the Complainant to show that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.

A registered trademark provides a clear indication that the rights in the mark shown on the trademark certificate belong to its respective owner. In this respect the Panel notes, the term “ticaret bankası” forms part of the Complainant’s broader trade name since 1913 and the Complainant holds a trademark registration including the term “ticaret bankası” within the mark.

The disputed domain name <ticaretbankasi.com> integrates a relevant portion of the Complainant’s trademark. Therefore, in the Panel’s view, the disputed domain name is sufficiently confusingly similar to the mark for purposes of standing to proceed with its claim.

As regards the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com”, it is typically disregarded under the confusing similarity test.

Consequently, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirement under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The onus is on the Complainant to make out at least a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and it is then for the Respondent to rebut this case.

The Panel accepts the Complainant’s submissions that the Respondent does not appear to be known by the disputed domain name, has not used or made demonstrable preparations to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name, and has no consent from the Complainant to use its trademark.

The Respondent did not submit any formal response.

The Panel recognizes that the term “ticaret bankası” can be considered as a common phrase as “trade bank” or “commercial bank” in the Turkish language. However, the fact that a disputed domain name corresponds to a dictionary word or phrase does not by itself confer any rights or legitimate interests to the Respondent. See section 2.10.1 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”). In addition, as previously mentioned, the term “ticaret bankası” corresponds to a component of the Complainant’s trademark and commonly used trade name.

Given the finding below, the Panel need not come to a determination on the second element.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

Paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy provides that the Complainant must establish that the Respondent registered and subsequently used the disputed domain name in bad faith. The Complainant should prove that the Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith.

According to the Policy, the Panel’s assessment should be fact-specific. See WIPO Overview 3.0., section 3.1, “complaints alleging the types of conduct described in UDRP paragraph 4(b) should be supported by arguments and available evidence such as dated screenshots of the website to which the disputed domain name resolves or correspondence between the parties. Even in cases of respondent default, panels have held that wholly unsupported conclusory allegations may not be sufficient to support a complainant’s case.”

In the Complaint, the Complainant’s sole argument is that the Respondent requested an exorbitant price for the transfer of the disputed domain name. The Panel finds that the simple argument of requesting an exorbitant price for the transfer of the disputed domain name is not sufficient to prove that the disputed domain name is registered and used in bad faith. Moreover, according to the Complaint, it is the Complainant who first contacted the Respondent for requesting the transfer of the disputed domain name. The Panel finds that the Complainant failed to establish evidence supporting a finding of the bad faith of the Respondent based on this argument.

The Panel further notes that there are no other arguments nor any supporting documents in the Complaint as to how the Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith. To the Panel’s opinion, considering that the disputed domain name is registered for more than 10 years at the time of the submission of the Complaint and comprises a common term (which also happens to be a component of the Complainant’s mark and trade name), the arguments and supporting evidences to be submitted by the Complainant should be much more compelling than those provided.

The Panel finds that the Complainant has not met its burden of proving the third element of the Policy.

The Panel notes that the Complainant may, if it deems appropriate, bring a case in a local court for adjudication.

7. Decision

For the foregoing reasons, the Complaint is denied.

Emre Kerim Yardimci
Sole Panelist
Date: March 23, 2020