WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Denizbank A.S., Eurodeniz International Banking Unit Limited v. Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC / Charles Kasmierski / Tatsıana Dahayeva, Euro Deniz International SRLS / Whois Privacy, Whois Privacy (enumDNS dba), Dahayeva Tatsıana, Euro Deniz International S.r.l.s, Whois Privacy, Whois Privacy (enumDNS dba)

Case No. D2020-2225

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Denizbank A.S., Eurodeniz International Banking Unit Limited, represented by Dericioglu & Eren Law Office, Turkey.

The Respondents are Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC / Charles Kasmierski / Tatsıana Dahayeva, Euro Deniz International SRLS / Whois Privacy, Whois Privacy (enumDNS dba), Dahayeva Tatsıana, Euro Deniz International S.r.l.s, Whois Privacy, Whois Privacy (enumDNS dba).

2. The Domain Names and Registrars

The disputed domain names <eurodenibu.com>, <eurodeniz.com> are registered with EuroDNS S.A. (“EuroDNS”). The disputed domain names <eurodibu.com> and <eurodenizibu.com> are registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (“GoDaddy”). EuroDNS and GoDaddy are collectively referred to as the “Registrars”.

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on August 24, 2020. On August 25, 2020 the Center transmitted by email to each of the Registrars a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On August 26, 2020, the Registrars transmitted by email to the Center their verification responses disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain names which differed from the named Respondents and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent by email a complaint deficiency communication to the Complainant on August 28, 2020 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, as well as information concerning the correct name Registrant for one of the disputed domain names, and invited the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on September 1, 2020.

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 Respondents of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on October 8, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was October 28, 2020. The Respondents did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondents default on November 4, 2020.

The Center appointed Evan D. Brown as the sole panelist in this matter on November 20, 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 offers banking services. It owns many trademarks in several countries for marks containing the word DENIZ, including DENIZBANK (and Design), Turkish Trademark Reg. No. 184234, registered July 4, 1997. Additionally, the Complainant has been using the mark EURODENİZ for many years.

The Respondents registered the disputed domain names on the following dates:

- <eurodeniz.com> – November 12, 2019.
- <eurodenibu.com> – June 10, 2020.
- <eurodibu.com> and <eurodenizibu.com> – January 15, 2020.

The Respondents have used the disputed domain names to establish websites to impersonate the Complainant, even in certain instances (for <eurodenibu.com> and <eurodibu.com>) by including the mark EURO DENIZ IBU in the web pages’ headers.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark; that the Respondents have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names; and that the disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith.

B. Respondent

The Respondents did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.

6. Consolidation of Multiple Respondents

There are multiple Respondents, and the Complainant requests that they be consolidated into this matter. The Panel finds that consolidation is proper in this case. Paragraph 10(e) of the Rules states that a “[p]anel shall decide a request by a Party to consolidate multiple domain name disputes in accordance with the Policy and these Rules”. Paragraph 10(c) of the Rules provides, in relevant part, that “the [p]anel shall ensure that the administrative proceeding takes place with due expedition”. Section 4.11.2 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”) summarizes the consensus view of UDRP panels on the consolidation of multiple respondents and provides that where a complaint is filed against multiple respondents, panels consider whether the domain names or corresponding websites are subject to common control, and whether the consolidation would be fair and equitable to all parties.

The record indicates the disputed domain names are under common control. The contact information for three of the disputed domain names is quite similar. The fourth disputed domain name has essentially the same content as one of the other three. All four of the disputed domain names seek to target the Complainant’s marks and share similarities in their composition. The Respondents have not presented any arguments as to why consolidation would be unfair or inequitable. Accordingly, conditions for consolidation of the disputed domain names into one matter are present here.

7. Discussion and Findings

To succeed, the Complainant must demonstrate that all of the elements listed in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy have been satisfied, namely, that:

(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and

(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.

The Panel finds that all three of these elements have been met in this case.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

A registered trademark provides a clear indication that the rights in the mark shown on the trademark certificate belong to its respective owner. See, Advance Magazine Publishers Inc., Les Publications Conde Nast S.A. v. Voguechen, WIPO Case No. D2014-0657. The Complainant has demonstrated its rights because it has shown that it is the owner of various registered marks incorporating the word DENIZ. And the Panel credits the Complainant’s assertions that it has established rights in the mark EURODENİZ through its many years of use.

The disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s marks for purposes of the Policy. The confusing similarity is especially visible when considering the disputed domain names <eurodenibu.com>, <eurodeniz.com>, and <eurodenizibu.com>.

The content of a website associated with a disputed domain name is usually disregarded by panels when assessing confusing similarity under the first element. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), paragraph 1.15. In some instances, however, UDRP panels have taken note of the content of the website associated with a disputed domain name to confirm confusing similarity whereby it appears prima facie that the respondent seeks to target a trademark through the disputed domain name. Id. This case presents such an instance, particularly with regard to the disputed domain name <eurodibu.com>. In the abstract, the similarity between this disputed domain name and the Complainant’s mark may not be immediately clear. But the content of the website appearing at this disputed domain name brings into clear focus that the Respondent is targeting the Complainant and its marks.

The Complainant has established this first element of the Policy.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Panel evaluates this element of the Policy by first looking to see whether the Complainant has made a prima facie showing that the Respondents lack rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names. If the Complainant makes that showing, the burden of demonstrating rights or legitimate interests shifts to the Respondents. On this point, the Complainant asserts that:

- the Respondents do not have any trademark or personal rights in the term “eurodeniz”;

- the Complainant has not licensed or otherwise permitted the Respondents to use any of the Complainant’s trademarks or to apply for or use any domain name incorporating any of the Complainant’s marks;

- there is no evidence that the Respondents have used the disputed domain names for any legitimate commercial or fair use;

- the Respondents have not used the disputed domain names in connection with any bona fide offering of goods or services prior to the dispute; and

- the Respondents use the websites appearing at the disputed domain names for fraudulent purposes.

The Respondents have not introduced any of their own evidence to contradict these assertions. Accordingly, the Complainant has established, prima facie, that the Respondents lack rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names, and the Respondents have not come forth with evidence to rebut that showing.

The Complainant has satisfied this second element of the Policy.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Policy requires a complainant to establish that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Policy describes several non-exhaustive circumstances demonstrating a respondent’s bad faith registration and use. Under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy, a panel may find bad faith when a respondent “[uses] the domain name to intentionally attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [respondent’s] website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of [respondent’s] website or location or a product or service on [respondent’s] website or location”.

Because the Complainant’s DENIZ and EURODENIZ marks are well known, and because of the website content developed by the Respondents at the disputed domain names, the Panel finds that the Respondents were aware of these marks when they registered the disputed domain names. The Panel finds, on these facts, that the Respondents targeted the Complainant and marks when they registered the disputed domain names. These facts show bad faith registration of the disputed domain names.

Bad faith use is shown from how the Respondents have used the disputed domain names to develop websites that imitate the Complainant, which would lead a web user to incorrectly believe that the websites were associated with the Complainant. The Complainant has produced evidence through screenshots of the websites found at“www.eurodibu.com”, “www.eurodenibu.com” and “www.eurodenizibu.com” showing how the Respondents have imitated the Complainant’s marks. Though it does not appear that the record shows actual use of use of the disputed domain name <eurodeniz.com> in this manner, the Panel is convinced, particularly in light of its findings above relating to consolidation, that the Respondents more likely than not would use or indeed have used this disputed domain name for nefarious purposes (which could include email use that did not require website content to appear at the disputed domain name). Even if the Respondent is merely passively holding this disputed domain name, in light of the evidence of bad faith use of the other disputed domain names (noting, again, the consolidation), and the implausibility of good faith use, the Panel is convinced that this domain name is being used in bad faith.

The Complainant has successfully established the third Policy element.

8. Decision

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 names <eurodenibu.com>, <eurodeniz.com>, <eurodibu.com>, and <eurodenizibu.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

Evan D. Brown
Sole Panelist
Date: December 4, 2020