web analytics
BODIS

#Istanbul Airport .com : Seventeen year old #domain name hit with #UDRP in #Turkey

ZFBot

The geo-domain name IstanbulAirport.com was hit with a UDRP at the WIPO.

This 2002 registration was sharing information about airport hotels in Istanbul, Turkey at the time.

Can a generic geo-domain be hit with a UDRP?

Apparently so, as Complainant is a Turkish company, IGA Havalimanı İşletmesi Anonim Şirketi, operators of the new Istanbul Airport. Istanbul’s Atatürk Airport is ceasing operations.

According to the official Istanbul Airport web site at IstanbulHavaLimani.com:

“The Great Move is Beginning! The relocation operation from Istanbul Ataturk Airport to Istanbul Airport will be carried out between 5 April 2019 3:00 a.m. and 7 April 2019 12:00 midnight (GMT + 3). Our passengers should contact the relevant airlines company for details about their flight. “

The problem for the Complainant is that their trademark was applied for in November 2018, whereas the domain IstanbulAirport.com was registered 17 years ago. The Complainant failed to come to a financial agreement with the Respondent, but the negotiations were initiated by the Complainant.

The three member panel at the WIPO pointed that out:

“On the other hand, the disputed domain name was registered in 2002. The case was initiated approximately 17 years after the registration of the disputed domain. It is not possible for the Complainant to be aware of the Complaint’s trademark or project when registering the contested domain name, considering that the project carried out by the Complainant commenced in 2011. In this respect, it is impossible for the complainant to register the disputed domain in bad faith.

On the other hand, the complainant has not attempted to sell the disputed domain name to the complainant. The complainant could not reach an agreement in the mutual communication and correspondence of the parties who wanted to buy the disputed domain by contacting the complainant. The Administrative Arbitral Tribunal believes that this situation cannot be considered as a malicious use of the disputed domain by the complainant under the rules of policy and the case law.”

The Complainant’s request to transfer the domain was thus denied. Full details follow, translated from the original decision in Turkish:

IGA Airport Management Corporation v. Contact Aslan directly
Case No. D2019-0062

1. Parties

Complainant, Goksu Safin Light, represented by Turkey, built IGI Airport in Turkey Business Incorporation.

That the Respondent, Turhan & Turhan Law Firm, represented by Turkey, in Toronto, is built Özçakır Lions in Canada.

2. Domain Name and Registrant

The disputed domain <istanbulairport.com>, IHS Telekom, Inc. (M Regulatory Entity ().

3. Usuli Transactions

The complaint was submitted to the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (W Center tarih) on 10 January 2019. On 11 January 2019, the Center sent a request for registration confirmation to the Registrar in relation to the disputed domain name. On 14 January 2019, the Regulatory Authority stated that the contact information of the registrant and registrant with the contact name of the registrant and the contact information of the Grieved and Complained person mentioned in the Complaint were the same.

Center, Complaint Policy, Dispute Resolution Policy (Polit Policy Çözüm or Ad UDRP ”), Regulatory Rules for Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (Ad Rules”) and Additional Rules for Uniform Rules for Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (, Appendix The Rules ”) have confirmed that there is a Complaint in accordance with the prescribed figure requirements.

In accordance with Article 2 (a) and 4 (a) of the Rules, the Center duly informed the Grievance of the complaint and the administrative proceedings started on 21 January 2019. According to Article 5 (a) of the Rules, the deadline for the submission of answers is 10 February 2019. In accordance with Article 5 (b) of the Rules, the complainant is given an additional four-day period to submit the petition and the deadline for the reply is changed to February 14, 2018. Official response to the complaint by the complainant was submitted on 14 February 2018.

On 20 February 2019, the Center appointed Emre Kerim Yarımcı, Dilek Üstün Ekdial and Uğur G. Yalçıner as Administrative Judges. The administrative arbitral tribunal decided that the appointment was appropriate. The Administrative Arbitration Board submitted the Declaration of Acceptance and Declaration of Neutrality and Independence to the Center under Article 7 of the Rules.

4. Cases

The Complainant was established on 7 October 2013 by the participants of the joint venture group after the tender for the construction of a new airport in İstanbul by the State Airports Authority on May 3, 2013, for 25 years by the abbreviation “CMLKK K Published in 2013 Trade Registry Gazette.

As stated in the Complaint, the Complainant has registered the IGA ISTANBUL GRAND AIRPORT brand number 68787 on 11 May 2015 and the IGA brand number 68781 on March 18, 2015. The application of both brands was made on 22 August 2014.

On the other hand, the complainant filed an application for trademark registration with the Turkish Patent and Trademark Authority on 2 November 2018 with the application number 2018/98401 and the statement ler lstanbul Airport Öte including the airport services. The application is currently under review.

Reported, is a natural person resident in Toronto, Canada. The disputed domain <istanbulairport.com> was registered on 30 April 2002. In the course of this case there is a parked internet site.

5. Arguments of the Parties
A. Complaining

The complainant asks for the transfer of the disputed domain name <istanbulairport.com> in accordance with Article 4 (b) (i) of the Policy.

The complainant specifically bases its complaint on:

The complainant claims that the disputed domain name is the same or very similar to his trademark application and registrations, as well as his trademark which he / she has obtained unregistered.

The complainant claims that the complainant is active in sectors such as the media, information, internet, advertising, etc., and is not interested in any distance from the airport management and therefore has no rights or a legitimate interest in the disputed domain name. On the other hand, the complainant stated that the disputed domain name was not used and parked and that the main purpose of the complainant was to sell the disputed domain by contacting third parties.

Furthermore, according to the Complainant’s claim; The disputed domain name is used in bad faith by Complaint. The complainant claims that the disputed domain name is the same or at least similar to that of the Complainant brand, and that the disputed domain name registration is carried out only for that purpose and that the Complaint aims to obtain commercial interest from the Complainant’s trademark. .

Finally, the Complainant stated that the Complainant did not accept his bid of $ 2,000 USD and 5,000 USD in order to transfer the disputed <istanbulairport.com> domain name during the negotiations and that he intended to sell the contested domain his name in an exorbitant price.

B. Complaint

The complainant argues that the registered domain name was registered on 30 April 2002 and that it was not possible to be aware of the complainant’s brand and that Airport Istanbul Airport mark was formed by combining two anonymous words, during the registration of the disputed domain name or later on, Istanbul Aiport. He stated that there are brand applications for ”and they have been rejected due to being unregistered and he emphasized that he is not applying for a brand since his statements are generic.

The complainant claimed that he had registered and used the name of the disputed domain name to perform airport transfer and hotel reservation sales. He complained that he did not conduct any misconduct or deceit while he was using the disputed domain name and did not even refer any airport in Istanbul.

The complainant stated that he had contacted him after the announcement of the new airport as için Istanbul Airport ın and had made an offer for the sale of the domain name.

The complainant also stated that he did not have an activity to sell the disputed domain name from the date of registration, and argued that, as a result, there was no requirement that the disputed domain be registered and used in bad faith.

6. Assessments and Assessments

In the complaint, it shall lay down cumulatively in accordance with Article 4 (a) of the Complaining Policy that:

(i) The disputed domain name is similar to the one that the Complainant is entitled to on or equal to the brand he / she is entitled to,

(ii) there is no right or legitimate interest of the Complained Person in relation to the disputed domain name; and

(iii) The disputed domain name is registered and used in bad faith.

According to Article 4 (a) of the Policy, the burden of proof for the fulfillment of all these requirements is in the Complainant.

In accordance with Article 11 (a) of the Rules, the administrative language shall be the same language as the language of the registration contract if there is no agreement between the parties or if there is no contrary arrangement in the registration contract. According to the information received from the Registrar, the language of the registration contract for the disputed domain is Turkish. Therefore, the language of the administrative procedure is determined in Turkish.

A. Same as to create the same or possibility of mixing

The complainant stated in his petition that he submitted the trademark application with the disputed domain to the Turkish Patent Institute. However, in order to fulfill the first requirement under the Policy, the complainant must be a registered trademark of the Complainant or it must be proved that he / she has obtained the trademark right without being registered.

On 2 November 2018, the word ”Istanbul Airport ibar, which was written by the complainant, was made on 2 November 2018. On 13 March 2019, the Arbitration Committee of the Turkish Patent and Trademark Authority, as a result of the research carried out on the online database of the Turkish Patent and Trademark Authority, is in the process of being examined by the Turkish Patent and Trademark Authority within the framework of the uc reasons for absolute rejection un and yet the third party may object to the reasons for the relative rejection. have found that they are not published. Therefore, it has been confirmed that the ”Istanbul airport airport trademark application filed by the Complainant with the Turkish Patent and Trademark Authority was not registered at the time of the investigation of the case.

The Administrative Arbitral Tribunal examined the evidence referred to in Annex 8 of the Complaint Petition in accordance with paragraph 1.3 under the heading O WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions D on the Center’s website. Paragraph 1.3 relates to what kind of evidence the Complainant would have to prove to be an unregistered trademark. The answer to this question is given below:

Adır Consensus: It must demonstrate that the Complainant’s right to complain that the complainant has a non-proprietary trademark right makes him or her products and services distinctive. Evidence of this includes the amount and length of sales made under the brand, the content and length of advertising, consumer surveys and media recognition. ”

The administrative arbitral tribunal is of the opinion that the Complainant may not have obtained the unregistered trademark right for the phrase gösteril Istanbul Airport m, although the complainant is not able to fulfill the burden of proof regarding the appearance of an unregistered trademark right. Because the documents presented in the appendix are not sufficient evidence that the term yeterli Istanbul Airport ğ is regarded as a trademark. (see Robotex Inc. v. eDomain.biz , WIPO Case No. D2007-1074 ).

Finally, the Complainant is also the owner of the IGA ISTANBUL GRAND AIRPORT number 68787 and the IGA 2014 68781 brands. The administrative arbitral tribunal has found that the words usu Istanbul söz and ”Airport mark, which constitute the contested domain name, pass within the registered trademark. As is also the case in UDRP jurisprudence, the registered brand’s elements are passed in the disputed domain name and can be recognized (ie “recognizable tanın), which brings the possibility of being confused between the registered trademark and the disputed domain name. The Administrative Arbitral Tribunal for WIPO’s selected Policy questions shall be referred to as 1.7 Istanbul Airport Hey of the disputed domain in accordance with the third edition of their opinion ( WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition ( O WIPO Overview 3.0 ın)) It does not eliminate the possibility of being confused. On the other hand, the fact that the phrase alın Istanbul Airport ası is a generic name is another consideration.

As a result, the Administrative Arbitral Tribunal considered that the contested domain name was similar to the likelihood of being confused with the Trademark’s registered trademarks and that the first requirement in Article 4 (a) of the Policy had been fulfilled.

B. Rights and Legitimate Interests

Pursuant to Article 4 (c) of the Policy, the Complaint may present its rights and legitimate interests on the domain name, including, but not limited to, any of the following:

Hazır (i) the use of a reference to a domain name or domain for any bona fide goods and services, or any demonstrable preparation for use,

(ii) the Reporter’s (individual, undertaking or other organizations) has become known by the domain in question, even though he has not acquired any brand or service mark rights; or

(iii) Use of the Complaint’s domain name in a non-commercial and legitimate manner in order to mislead customers and thereby obtain unfair commercial gain or to harm the trademark or service mark in question. (

As a rule, the burden of proof is in the Complainant. The complainant must prove that the complainant has no right or any legitimate interest in the name of the complainant.

If the complainant makes at first sight ( prima facie ) that the complainant has no right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain; The complainant may establish a right or a legitimate interest in the disputed domain name by putting forward one of the foregoing.

The Complainant stated that he / she has not given any right or license to use the trademark, that the Complaint’s purpose in registering the disputed domain name is commercial, that the Complainant has not used the disputed domain name and that he has taken it only to sell to the Complainant. at first sight ( prima facie ) that such a use cannot be considered as good-faith use and there is no right or legitimate interest of the complainant on the disputed domain name.

He stated that the disputed domain name consisted of generic words and that he did not apply for a trademark before Turkish Patent and Trademark Authority and that similar similar Istanbul Airport brand applications were rejected by Turkish Patent and Trademark Authority. On the other hand, he claimed that he had registered the disputed domain name in 2002 and that he had used the disputed domain name with evidence that he had been using it for sale of airport transfers and hotel bookings from that date on which he used the disputed domain name for good faith service delivery.

The administrative arbitral tribunal has been convinced that the use of the aforementioned use by the complainant is a legitimate right of use and that it has taken care not to make any use of the Grievance’s behavior in the course of its use and that will cause confusion with the complainant. In fact, the complainant started to use the domain name before the establishment of the complainant company. The name of the airport was also announced on 29 October 2018. In particular, no use could have been identified after the date of the Complaint, in order to confuse the complainant with the complainant.

Furthermore, considering that the business model in the form of buying and selling generic words in the sectoral fields is not an unlawful model, although it is not the primary objective of the Reported Jury, the complainant is fixed by many UDRP decisions; it also considers that the disputed domain name is composed of generic phrases and that the sale of the disputed domain is not contrary to the policy rules.

The administrative arbitral tribunal concluded that, in accordance with the decision of the UDRP, which would constitute a precedent, the Complainant had a legitimate interest in the disputed domain name and fulfilled the requirements of Article 4 (c) (i).

C. Malicious Registration and Use

Article 4 (b) of the Policy stipulates four conditions that the use and registration of the domain name will provide evidence that it is in bad faith:

(i) The purpose of the domain name, the registered trademark or service mark owner to the commercial competitor of the Complainant or Complainant, to sell, rent, or in any way the purpose of transferring the Complaint to the domain name at a price above the documented value from the pocket of the Complaint. situations or;

(ii) the Grieved has registered this domain name to prevent the trade or service mark owner from using the relevant domain name, provided that such behavior has been adopted;

(iii) has made the registered domain name registration primarily for the purpose of harming the commercial activities of commercial competitors;

(iv) Support for the source, sponsorship relationship, economic link or the website or domain of the Complaint or the goods and services offered in this site or area for the purpose of commercial gain by using the complained, domain name. means to attract Internet users intentionally to their own web site or other online space by creating the possibility of being confused.

The complainant stated that the complainant’s attempt to sell the disputed domain name to him at an exorbitant price constituted malicious use.

Pursuant to Article 4 (a) (iii) of the Policy, the Complainant domain has to demonstrate that it is registered and used in bad faith. Accordingly, in order to be able to mention the malicious registration, it is necessary to make the registration malicious, that is, when the owner of the domain wishes to register his domain name, he / she has to be malicious and also the use should contain malice.

On the other hand, the Administrative Arbitral Tribunal relating to WIPO’s selected Policy questions, in accordance with Section 3.8.1 of the third edition of their opinion ( WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions , Third Edition ( eti WIPO Overview 3.0 ile )); the registration of a domain name by the Complainant before the Complainant acquires the trademark rights will not automatically lead to the conclusion that the Complaintant is not malicious.

Whether the complaint is malicious or not should be evaluated according to the data in the case.

In the present case, as stated above, the activity carried out by the complainant is a legitimate activity. On the other hand, the complainant did not raise the disputed domain name or contacted the complainant for the purpose of selling. There is no evidence that he had made a deliberate use of the complainant to cause confusion.

On the other hand, the disputed domain name was registered in 2002. The case was initiated approximately 17 years after the registration of the disputed domain. It is not possible for the Complainant to be aware of the Complaint’s trademark or project when registering the contested domain name, considering that the project carried out by the Complainant commenced in 2011. In this respect, it is impossible for the complainant to register the disputed domain in bad faith.

On the other hand, the complainant has not attempted to sell the disputed domain name to the complainant. The complainant could not reach an agreement in the mutual communication and correspondence of the parties who wanted to buy the disputed domain by contacting the complainant. The Administrative Arbitral Tribunal believes that this situation cannot be considered as a malicious use of the disputed domain by the complainant under the rules of policy and the case law.

As stated in many UDRP decisions, the main purpose of the Policy was to prevent ama cybersquatting gibi situations. Similar to many other UDRP decisions, the Administrative Arbitral Tribunal was not equipped with sufficient powers to resolve complex disputes, as in the present case. In this respect, the Administrative Arbitral Tribunal considers that it is more accurate and accurate to settle this dispute before the courts ( Levantur, SA v. Media Insight , WIPO Case No. D2009-0608 ).

The Administrative Arbitral Tribunal concluded that, after evaluating all matters relating to the registration and use, the Reporter did not register the disputed domain name in bad faith and misused it.

For these reasons, the Administrative Arbitral Tribunal has reached the conclusion that the requirements in Articles 4 (a) (iii) and 4 (b) of the Policy have not been fulfilled.

Decision

In the light of the reasons stated above, the complaint was rejected.

Contact Emre directly
Head of Administrative Arbitration Committee

Dilek Üstün Ekdial
Administrative Referee

Uğur G. Yalçıner
Administrative Referee
Date: 15 March 2019


Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Copyright © 2019 DomainGang.com · All Rights Reserved.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

 characters available