WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Tüpraş Türkiye Petrol Rafinerileri A.S. v. Nadir All / Allnado
Case No. DEU2017-0006
1. The Parties
The Complainant is Tüpraş Türkiye Petrol Rafinerileri A.S. ("Tüpraş") of Kocaeli, Turkey, represented by June Intellectual Property Services Inc., Turkey.
The Respondent is Nadir All / Allnado of Duseldorf, Germany.
2. The Domain Name, Registry and Registrar
The Registry of the disputed domain name <tupras.eu> is the European Registry for Internet Domains ("EURid" or the "Registry"). The Registrar of the disputed domain name is Instra Corporation Pty Ltd.
3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on August 12, 2017. On August 14, 2017, the Center transmitted by email to the Registry a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On August 17, 2017, the Registry transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint.
In response to a notification by the Center that the Complaint was administratively deficient, the Complainant filed an amended Complaint on August 21, 2017.
The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on August 24, 2017 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registry, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on August 24, 2017.
The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended Complaints satisfied the formal requirements of the .eu Alternative Dispute Resolution Rules (the "ADR Rules") and the World Intellectual Property Organization Supplemental Rules for .eu Alternative Dispute Resolution Rules (the "Supplemental Rules").
In accordance with the ADR Rules, Paragraph B(2), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on August 25, 2017. In accordance with the ADR Rules, Paragraph B(3), the due date for Response was October 9, 2017. The Respondent did not submit a compliant Response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on October 10, 2017.
The Center appointed Adam Taylor as the sole panelist in this matter on October 19, 2017. 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 ADR Rules, Paragraph B(5).
4. Factual Background
The Complainant is a Turkish oil company. The Complainant and its predecessors have traded under the name "Tüpraş" since 1950.
The Complainant owns, inter alia, international trade mark no. 1291627 for the word "Tüpraş" (figurative) in class 4, designated in the European Union ("EU"), with a designation and registration date of December 12, 2015.
The disputed domain name was registered on December 18, 2016.
There is no evidence that the disputed domain name has ever been used for an active website.
5. Parties' Contentions
The disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant's trade mark.
The Complainant has not licensed or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use its mark.
The Respondent has not used the disputed domain name, either commercially or non-commercially, and has not been known by the disputed domain name.
The Complainant is the largest industrial and services group in Turkey. Its advertisements can be seen all over Turkey including on streets and buildings as well as daily on TV and radio. Given the fame of the Complainant's mark and the fact that the Respondent is apparently a Turkish individual, it is unlikely that the Respondent was unaware of the Complainant's trade mark when he registered the disputed domain name.
The Respondent has blocked the Complainant from acquiring the disputed domain name.
It is impossible to conceive of any plausible legitimate use of the disputed domain name.
The Respondent intended to attract Internet users by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's mark.
The disputed domain name constitutes a passive holding in bad faith.
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar to a name in respect of which a right or rights are recognized or established by national law of a Member State and/or Community law
Article 21(1) of Regulation (EC) No. 874/2004 ("the Regulation") states that "[a] registered domain name shall be subject to revocation, using an appropriate extra-judicial or judicial procedure, where that [domain] name is identical or confusingly similar to a name in respect of which a right is recognized or established by national and/or Community law, such as the rights mentioned in Article 10(1)".
Article 10(1) of the Regulation refers to, inter alia: "registered national and community trademarks, geographical indications or designations of origin, and, in as far as they are protected under national law in the Member-State where they are held: unregistered trademarks, trade names, business identifiers, company names (…)".
Paragraph B(11)(d)(1)(i) of the ADR Rules requires that the disputed domain name be "identical or confusingly similar to a name in respect of which a right is recognized or established by national law of a member State and/or Community law".
The Complainant has established rights under Article 21(1) and Paragraph B(11)(d)(1)(i) of the ADR Rules by virtue of its international trade mark designating the EU.
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to this trade mark, a figurative mark dominated by the stylized term "Tüpraş".
The Panel therefore finds that the Complainant has established the first element of Article 21(1) of the Regulation and Paragraph B(11)(d)(1)(i) of the ADR Rules.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Under Article 21(1) of the Regulation and Paragraph B(11)(d)(1) of the ADR Rules (a) lack of rights or legitimate interests and (b) registration or use in bad faith are alternative requirements. For reasons explained below, the Panel considers that the disputed domain name has been registered in bad faith and so there is no need to separately address lack of rights or legitimate interests.
C. Registered or Used in Bad Faith
For the following reasons, the Panel considers that the disputed domain name has been registered in bad faith:
1. The name "Tüpraş" is a distinctive, coined term.
2. The Complainant has used the name "Tüpraş" for many years before registration of the disputed domain name.
3. There is no evidence of legitimate use of the disputed domain name.
4. The Respondent had not appeared in these proceedings to explain its purpose in registering the disputed domain name or contest the Complainant's allegations, including that the Complainant has established a very substantial reputation as one of the largest industrial concerns in Turkey and that the Respondent's name indicates that he is of Turkish origin and likely to have been aware of the Complainant on registration of the disputed domain name.
Accordingly, the Panel concludes that the Complainant has established that the Complainant has established the third element of Article 21(1) of the Regulation and Paragraph B(11)(d)(1)(iii) of the ADR Rules.
For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with Paragraph B(11) of the ADR Rules, the Panel orders1 that the disputed domain name, <tupras.eu>, be revoked2 .
Date: October 31, 2017
1 This decision shall be implemented by the Registry within thirty (30) days after the notification of the decision to the Parties, unless the Respondent initiates court proceedings in a mutual jurisdiction.
2 Article 22(11) of the Regulation states that the Panel shall decide that a domain name shall be revoked if it finds that the domain name is speculative or abusive as defined in Article 21. Article 22(11) further provides that the domain name shall be transferred to a complainant if the complainant applies for the domain name and satisfies the general eligibility criteria set out in Article 4(2)(b) of Regulation (EC) 733/2002. The Complainant has not sought to satisfy the eligibility criteria and simply seeks revocation of the disputed domain name.