The Complainant is World Trade Centers Association, Inc. of New York, New York, United States of America, represented by Dundar Law Firm, Turkey.
The Respondent is Hanifi Bal of Ankara, Turkey.
The disputed domain name <wtcwedding.com> is registered with FBS Inc. (the “Registrar”).
The Complaint was filed in English with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 1, 2019. On the same day, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On March 4, 2019, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant, providing the contact details, and informing that the language of the Registration Agreement is Turkish. On March 7, 2019, the Center sent an email in English and Turkish to the Parties regarding the language of the proceeding. The Complainant requested Turkish to be the language of the proceeding on March 8, 2019. The Respondent did not comment on the language of the proceeding by the specified due date.
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 March 14, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was April 3, 2019. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on April 5, 2019.
The Center appointed Dilek Ustun Ekdial as the sole panelist in this matter on April 16, 2019. 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.
The Complainant World Trade Centers Association, Inc., stimulates trade and investment opportunities for commercial property developers, economic development agencies, and international businesses looking to connect globally and prosper locally with more than 300 World Trade Centers (WTCs) in nearly 100 countries.
The Complainant owns a large portfolio of well-known trademarks including, but not limited to, the trademarks WTC and WORLD TRADE CENTER; WTC is the abbreviation for WORLD TRADE CENTER.
The Complainant’s trademarks are registered in classes 6, 8, 9, 14, 16, 18, 20, 21, 25, 26, 28, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, and 45 in various countries of the world, namely: Australia, Bahrain, Cambodia, Canada, Chile, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Italy, Indonesia, Israel, Jordan, Malaysia, Mexico, Mongolia New Zealand, Philippines, Singapore, Spain, Tunisia, Turkey, and United States of America.
In Turkey, where the Respondent is located, the Complainant is the owner of, among others, the trademark registration Nos. 2008 69325 for WTC, registered on December 15, 2009; and 2008 69321 for WORLD TRADE CENTER, registered on November 11, 2009.
The disputed domain name <wtcwedding.com> was registered on December 9, 2012, and resolves to a website offering wedding-related services.
The Complainant alleges the following:
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark WTC.
The disputed domain names incorporate the Complainant’s WTC trademark in its entirety.
The Complainant submits that the addition of the term “wedding” is merely descriptive of the Respondent’s services.
Complainant also alleges that:
The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name as it is unable to invoke any of the circumstances set out in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy.
The Respondent is not known by the dispute domain name, nor has it been licensed or otherwise allowed to make any use of the Complainant’s trademark.
The Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
According to the Complainant, given the Complainant’s renowned and goodwill worldwide, it would be inconceivable for the Respondent to argue that he did not have knowledge of the Complainant’s WTC trademarks at the time of registration of the disputed domain name in 2012.
The Complainant adds that the Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name with the intention to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademarks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of its website or location or of a product or service on its website or location, which constitutes registration and use in bad faith pursuant to paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.
By reproducing the Complainant’s trademark in the disputed domain name and in the content of the website and prominently displaying the Complainant’s official logo, the website at the disputed domain name clearly suggests that it belongs to the Complainant or is endorsed by the Complainant. The fact that the website does not provide any information on the true identity of the website provider clearly shows that the Respondent intentionally creates the impression that the services offered on the Respondent’s website are provided by the Complainant or are commercially linked to the Complainant, to mislead Internet users as to the source of the website.
The Respondent is using the Complainant’s trademarks not only in the disputed domain name but also in the content of the website, such as the trademark WORLD TRADE CENTER, and the Complainant’s logo, which evinces the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name in bad faith.
According the Complainant, the Respondent is also using the wording “Dunya Ticaret Merkezi” on the website, which is Turkish translation of the trademark WORLD TRADE CENTER.
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules requires the Panel to decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, the Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable.
Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant bears the burden of showing:
(i) that the disputed domain name are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and
(ii) that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and
(iii) that the disputed domain name have been registered and is being used in bad faith.
The disputed domain name <wtcwedding.com> contains the Complainant’s well-known trademark WTC in addition to the term “wedding”. As stated in section 1.8 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), where the relevant trademark is recognizable within the disputed domain name, the addition of other terms would not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. Therefore, the addition of the term to the disputed domain name does not avoid the finding of confusing similarity.
The generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”), in this case “.com”, is generally not to be taken into consideration when examining the identity or confusing similarity between the Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name.
Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark WTC in which the Complainant has rights, satisfying the condition of the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i).
Pursuant to section 2.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0, the Complainant has the burden to establish that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Once the Complainant had made out a prima facie case, the burden of production shifts to the Respondent to rebut such prima facie case by providing evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
The Respondent has not provided any evidence of the type specified in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, or any other circumstances giving rise to rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
Given the prominent and unauthorized use of the Complainant’s trademarks on the website at the disputed domain name, it is clear that the Respondent has not used the disputed domain name for any bona fide offering of goods and/or services. The Respondent has not shown that it has been commonly known by the disputed domain name. Rather, the evidence of the Complainant suggests that the Respondent has used the disputed domain name in an attempt to trade off the goodwill associated with the Complainant’s trademark.
The Complainant also showed, inter alia, that the Respondent has neither a license nor any other permission to use the Complainant’s trademark in the disputed domain name or otherwise.
The Panel finds that the Complainant has made a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, and that the Respondent has failed to demonstrate such rights or legitimate interests.
The Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.
The Panel is of the opinion that when the Respondent registered the disputed domain name he knew that WTC and WORLD TRADE CENTER were the trademarks of the Complainant, and accordingly finds that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith.
The use of the disputed domain name also constitutes use in bad faith. The Respondent is deliberately confusing Internet users in order to create the impression that said website and the business promoted thereon are somehow affiliated, sponsored, or endorsed by the Complainant. Such a conduct clearly demonstrates that the sole purpose of the Respondent was to take advantage of the reputation of the Complainant and its trademarks, attracting Internet users to the website corresponding to the disputed domain name by causing erroneous association with the Complainant, its activities and services.
Therefore the Panel finds that the Respondent used the disputed domain name to intentionally attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademarks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of its website, products and unauthorized activities promoted thereon or through it, according to paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy (See Flybe Group PLC v. Robb Dobin, theflybe.com, WIPO Case No. D2011-1537, and WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.1)
On the basis of the above, the Panel finds that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirements of the third element of the Policy.
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 <wtcwedding.com> be transferred to the Complainant.
Dilek Ustun Ekdial
Sole Panelist
Date: May 3, 2019