À propos de la propriété intellectuelle Formation en propriété intellectuelle Sensibilisation à la propriété intellectuelle La propriété intellectuelle pour… Propriété intellectuelle et… Propriété intellectuelle et… Information relative aux brevets et à la technologie Information en matière de marques Information en matière de dessins et modèles industriels Information en matière d’indications géographiques Information en matière de protection des obtentions végétales (UPOV) Lois, traités et jugements dans le domaine de la propriété intellectuelle Ressources relatives à la propriété intellectuelle Rapports sur la propriété intellectuelle Protection des brevets Protection des marques Protection des dessins et modèles industriels Protection des indications géographiques Protection des obtentions végétales (UPOV) Règlement extrajudiciaire des litiges Solutions opérationnelles à l’intention des offices de propriété intellectuelle Paiement de services de propriété intellectuelle Décisions et négociations Coopération en matière de développement Appui à l’innovation Partenariats public-privé L’Organisation Travailler avec nous Responsabilité Brevets Marques Dessins et modèles industriels Indications géographiques Droit d’auteur Secrets d’affaires Académie de l’OMPI Ateliers et séminaires Journée mondiale de la propriété intellectuelle Magazine de l’OMPI Sensibilisation Études de cas et exemples de réussite Actualités dans le domaine de la propriété intellectuelle Prix de l’OMPI Entreprises Universités Peuples autochtones Instances judiciaires Ressources génétiques, savoirs traditionnels et expressions culturelles traditionnelles Économie Égalité des genres Santé mondiale Changement climatique Politique en matière de concurrence Objectifs de développement durable Application Technologies de pointe Applications mobiles Sport Tourisme PATENTSCOPE Analyse de brevets Classification internationale des brevets Programme ARDI – Recherche pour l’innovation Programme ASPI – Information spécialisée en matière de brevets Base de données mondiale sur les marques Madrid Monitor Base de données Article 6ter Express Classification de Nice Classification de Vienne Base de données mondiale sur les dessins et modèles Bulletin des dessins et modèles internationaux Base de données Hague Express Classification de Locarno Base de données Lisbon Express Base de données mondiale sur les marques relative aux indications géographiques Base de données PLUTO sur les variétés végétales Base de données GENIE Traités administrés par l’OMPI WIPO Lex – lois, traités et jugements en matière de propriété intellectuelle Normes de l’OMPI Statistiques de propriété intellectuelle WIPO Pearl (Terminologie) Publications de l’OMPI Profils nationaux Centre de connaissances de l’OMPI Série de rapports de l’OMPI consacrés aux tendances technologiques Indice mondial de l’innovation Rapport sur la propriété intellectuelle dans le monde PCT – Le système international des brevets ePCT Budapest – Le système international de dépôt des micro-organismes Madrid – Le système international des marques eMadrid Article 6ter (armoiries, drapeaux, emblèmes nationaux) La Haye – Le système international des dessins et modèles industriels eHague Lisbonne – Le système d’enregistrement international des indications géographiques eLisbon UPOV PRISMA Médiation Arbitrage Procédure d’expertise Litiges relatifs aux noms de domaine Accès centralisé aux résultats de la recherche et de l’examen (WIPO CASE) Service d’accès numérique aux documents de priorité (DAS) WIPO Pay Compte courant auprès de l’OMPI Assemblées de l’OMPI Comités permanents Calendrier des réunions Documents officiels de l’OMPI Plan d’action de l’OMPI pour le développement Assistance technique Institutions de formation en matière de propriété intellectuelle Mesures d’appui concernant la COVID-19 Stratégies nationales de propriété intellectuelle Assistance en matière d’élaboration des politiques et de formulation de la législation Pôle de coopération Centres d’appui à la technologie et à l’innovation (CATI) Transfert de technologie Programme d’aide aux inventeurs WIPO GREEN Initiative PAT-INFORMED de l’OMPI Consortium pour des livres accessibles L’OMPI pour les créateurs WIPO ALERT États membres Observateurs Directeur général Activités par unité administrative Bureaux extérieurs Avis de vacance d’emploi Achats Résultats et budget Rapports financiers Audit et supervision

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Tupras Turkiye Petrol Rafinerileri A.S. v. Hadi Farzad

Case No. DIR2016-0012

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Tupras Turkiye Petrol Rafinerileri A.S. of Korfez, Turkey, represented by June Intellectual Property Services Inc., Turkey.

The Respondent is Hadi Farzad of Tehran, the Islamic Republic of Iran.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <tupras.ir> (the "Domain Name") is registered with IRNIC.

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on April 29, 2016. On April 29, 2016, the Center transmitted by email to IRNIC a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On May 24, 2016, IRNIC transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. Hard copies of the Complaint were received by the Center on May 18, 2016.

The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the .ir Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy" or "irDRP"), the Rules for .ir Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules"), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for .ir 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 May 26, 2016. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was June 15, 2016. No Response was submitted and the Center accordingly notified the parties of the Respondent's default on June 16, 2016.

The Center appointed Dawn Osborne as the sole panelist in this matter on June 24, 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 has registered trade marks for or containing TUPRAS for its services dating back to 2000 in Turkey and also holds an international registration for TUPRAS plus logo which also designates the Islamic Republic of Iran. It is the only oil refinery company in Turkey.

The Domain Name was registered on January 21, 2016 and is not being used.

5. Parties' Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant's submissions can be summarised as follows:

The Complainant is Turkey's only refinery and largest Enterprise with 28.1 million ton crude processing capacity per year. The roots of the Complainant go back to the 1950s, however the company's present organizational structure dates back to 1983. The Complainant has registered trade marks for or containing TUPRAS for its services dating back to 2000 in Turkey and also holds an international registration for TUPRAS plus logo which also designates the Islamic Republic of Iran. The Complainant has been the owner of <tupras.com.tr> back to 1997 and also uses <tupras.com>. The Complainant openly conducts lawful activities in the Islamic Republic of Iran.

The Domain Name is identical to the Complainant's trade mark. The designation of a country code Top-Level Dominan (ccTLD) such as ".ir" is not sufficient to avoid this. Consumers will believe that the Domain Name is the Complainant's domain name for the Islamic Republic of Iran.

The Complainant has not licensed the Respondent to use the mark TUPRAS. The Respondent is not using the Domain Name and has not been commonly known by it.

The Respondent has registered the Domain Name to confuse consumers for profit or to sell it to the Complainant or both. TUPRAS is well-known and the Respondent must have known about the Complainant.

Passive holding of a well-known mark as a domain name is evidence of registration and use in bad faith.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Domain Name consists of the Complainant's well known mark TUPRAS and the ccTLD ".ir". ccTLDs are typically not taken into account for the purposes of determining whether a mark and a domain name are identical or confusing similar under the Policy. As such the Domain Name is identical to the Complainant's TUPRAS registered mark for the purposes of the Policy. As such the Complainant has satisfied the first limb of the Policy with respect to the Domain Name.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Respondent does not appear to have any trade marks associated with the name "Tupras". There is no evidence that he is commonly known by this name and he does not have any consent from the Complainant to use its TUPRAS mark. The Respondent does not appear to have used the Domain Name for any bona fide offering of goods or services. The website at the Domain Name is inactive. Further, the Respondent did not respond to this Complaint and does not explain why he has registered the Domain Name. Given that the Complainant's mark is well-known in the oil-refinery industry it would indicate to most Internet users and members of the public an association with the Complainant. The Respondent does not deny any knowledge of the Complainant and its rights or provide any evidence of intended legitimate use. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name.

C. Registered or Used in Bad Faith

Under paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy it is sufficient to show either registration or use in bad faith as IRNIC has adopted an amended version of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy. Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out various criteria which are evidence of registration and use of a domain name in bad faith which are non-exclusive. However, panels have historically found that there can be a finding of registration and use in bad faith where there is passive use of a well-known trade mark in a domain name where there is no response and no explanation as to why the use could be good faith. See Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No. D2000-0003. In this case, as noted above the Complainant's mark is well-known and the Respondent has not responded to the Complaint and has not explained why he would be entitled to register a domain name consisting of the Complainant's mark and the ccTLD ".ir". As such the Panel finds on the balance of probability that the Respondent registered and used the Domain Name in bad faith.

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 <tupras.ir> be transferred to the Complainant.

Dawn Osborne
Sole Panelist
Date: June 27, 2016

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