{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-101677",
    "time_of_filling": "2017-09-11 09:59:45",
    "domain_names": [
        "FRANKE-4440275.COM"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "Aneta Jelenová (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "Franke Technology and Trademark Ltd"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "BrandIT GmbH",
    "respondent": [
        "SUKRAN MERT"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\ni) LANGUAGE OF PROCEEDINGS REQUEST:\r\n\r\nIf the language of the Registration Agreement of the disputed Domain name <franke-4440275.com> is a language other than English, according to the applicable Registrar, Complainant hereby files a language of proceeding request that the language of the proceeding should be English based on the following facts:\r\n\r\nRespondent has not replied to the cease and desist letter (“C&D letter”), nor responded that they did not understand the content of the letter. This conduct has a relevancy when deciding on the language of the proceeding, as it was stated on WIPO Case no. D2015-0298 where the “The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's request, therefore it did not express in any way that it cannot answer the allegations since it does not understand English.”\r\n\r\nThe Disputed domain name includes the Complainant’s mark FRANKE. Complainant is a Swiss company whose business language is English and considering that Respondent is in the service business, it is unlikely that Respondent is not at least familiar with the English language. In addition, Respondent has chosen to register the domain name under the Top Level domain name “.com” which is the commercial TLD, and is applicable to a broader audience than merely Turkey. A more suitable TLD if only addressing the Turkish market would be the “.com.tr“ extension. Complainant contends the proceeding would likely be put through unnecessary trouble and delay if Turkish were made the language of the proceeding and there would be no discernible benefit to the parties or the proceeding, in the circumstances, that may be gained by maintaining the default language. In WIPO decisions D2015-1508 and D2015-0614 the Panel decided to accept the Complaint to be filed in English despite the fact that the Registrar had informed the Center that the language of the Registration Agreement was Turkish. \r\n\r\nii) ABOUT COMPLAINANT AND THE BRAND FRANKE\r\n\r\nThe Complainant is the proprietor of the FRANKE trademarks.  Franke entered the Turkish market as early as in 1999 and Turkey has become one of its most important markets in the kitchen appliances industry. Complainant has presence in Turkey through its wholly owned subsidiaries Franke Mutfak ve Banyo and Sistemleri Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S.  Complainant also operates the local official website www.franke.com.tr. \r\n\r\nIn 1911 Hermann Franke established a sheet-metal business in Rorschach, Switzerland. In 1974 the Franke Group expanded significantly with 13 subsidiaries and two license companies established in Europe. In 1989 the company expanded worldwide. Today the Franke Group (included in the Artemis Group) has 70 subsidiaries with around 9’000 employees in 37 countries, generating consolidated sales of CHF 2.1 billion.\r\nThe Franke Group consists of four businesses:\r\n• Franke Kitchen Systems – integrated systems for food preparation and cooking, including sinks, taps, worktops, hoods and cooking appliances\r\n• Franke Foodservice Systems – kitchen equipment, supplies and a broad range of services for leading restaurant chains\r\n• Franke Water Systems – integrated systems for private bathrooms and semi-\/public washrooms, including taps, showers, sinks, accessories, water management systems\r\n• Franke Coffee Systems – a comprehensive range of coffee machines for out of home coffee preparation, including superautomatics, traditionals and brewers.\r\nComplainant is the owner of the well-known registered trademark FRANKE as a word and figure mark in several classes in numerous countries all over the world including Turkey. Complainant has a strong presence in Turkey where Respondent resides. The Complainants official sales and service locator and website in Turkey are:\r\n\r\n•\twww.franke.com\r\n•\twww.franke.com\r\n\r\nOverview of trademark registrations:\r\nIR = International Registration\t(NB: Turkey falls within the Madrid Protocol)\r\n\r\nTrademark\t\r\nReg. No\t\r\nClass:\t\r\nDate of Registration\r\n\r\nFRANKE\t\r\nIR 975860\t\r\n6; 11; 20; 21; 37\t\r\nJune 14, 2007 (ink. Turkey)\r\n\r\nFRANKE\t\r\nIR 872557\t\r\n6; 11; 21; \t\r\nFebruary 28, 2005 (ink. Turkey)\r\n\r\nFRANKE\tTurkish national no. 135579\t\r\n6-7,9,11,19, 20-21\t\r\nSeptember 23, 1992\r\n\r\nComplainant owns the Turkish national trademark via its subsidiary, Franke Water Systems AG.\r\n\r\nThese trademark registrations predate the registration of the Disputed domain name. Due to extensive use, advertising and revenue associated with its trademarks worldwide, Complainant enjoys a high degree of renown around the world, including in Turkey where Respondent is located. Complainant has previously successfully challenged several FRANKE domain names through UDRP processes e.g. WIPO cases: D2016-1120; DCO2016-0021; D2016-0686; D2016-0663.\r\n\r\nComplainant has registered a number of domain names under generic Top-Level Domains (\"gTLD\") and country-code Top-Level Domains (\"ccTLD\") containing the term “franke”, for example, <franke.com> (created on March 18, 1996), <franke.com.tr> (created on April 27, 2000), and <franke.net> (created on October 1, 1997). Complainant uses these domain names to connect to a website through which it informs potential customers about its FRANKE mark and its products and services.\r\n\r\nLEGAL GROUNDS:\r\n\r\ni) THE DOMAIN NAME IS CONFUSINGLY SIMILAR\r\n\r\nThe domain name <franke-4440275.com> (hereinafter referred to as the “Disputed domain name”), registered on May 11, 2017, directly and entirely incorporates Complainant’s well-known, registered trademark FRANKE. The addition of the generic Top-Level Domains (gTLD) “.com” does not add any distinctiveness to the Disputed domain name. The Disputed domain name incorporates the FRANKE trademark coupled with what appears to be a phone number “4440275”. The name Franke with the addition of a phone number would be closely connected to Franke´s business and exaggerates the impression that Respondent is somehow affiliated with Complainant, and Respondent is somehow doing business in Turkey using Complainant`s trademark. E.g. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (\"WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0\"), paragraph 1.8, as well as the International Business Machines Corporation v. Sledge, Inc. \/ Frank Sledge WIPO Case No. D2014-0581 where the Panel stated the following “In addition, it is generally accepted that the addition of the top-level suffix in the domain name (e.g., “.com”) is to be disregarded under the confusing similarity test”. This reasoning should apply here and the Disputed domain name should be considered as confusingly similar to the registered trademark FRANKE. \r\n\r\nii) THE RESPONDENT HAS NO RIGHTS OR LEGITIMATE INTEREST IN RESPECT OF THE DOMAIN NAMES \r\n\r\nComplainant has not found that Respondent is commonly known by the Disputed domain name. The WHOIS information “Sukran Mert” is the only evidence in the WHOIS record, which relates Respondent to the Disputed domain name.  \r\nRespondent has not by virtue of the content of the website, nor by its use of the Disputed domain name shown that they will be used in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services.\r\nThere is no evidence that Respondent has a history of using, or preparing to use, the Disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services. It is clear that Complainant has become a distinctive identifier associated with the term “FRANKE” and that the intention of the Disputed domain name is to take advantage of an association with the Complainant’s business.\t\r\n\r\nTHE WEBSITE \r\n\r\nRespondent is using the above Disputed domain name to attract internet users to its website where Respondent state that they are “Franke Servisi” (in English by Google Translator: “Franke Service”). A common misunderstanding with authorized or non-authorized repair centers is that they also believe that they can freely register domain names incorporating the trademark name of the products they are offering services on. In the current case, Respondent is not an authorized repair center. The FRANKE logotype in red appear with major prominence towards the bottom half of the home page, and also on the left hand side next to the phone number. This strongly suggests that there is a connection with Complainant. Moreover, the use of the word FRANKE (i) in the Disputed domain name and (ii) also on multiple occasions in the website text further creates the impression that there is some official or authorized link with Complainant in relation to repairs and services within Turkey. The trademark FRANKE has been already considered by previous WIPO cases as a well-known trademark and it is inconceivable, noting the prominent use of the logo on the website, that Respondent didn’t know about its existence. E.g. WIPO case number D2016-0686 Franke Technology and Trademark Ltd vs NicProxy Customer Whois Privacy Protection Service where the Panel stated the following:\r\n\r\n“First, the Panel believes that the Respondent must have been well aware of the Complainant’s trademarks when it registered the disputed domain name on September 24, 2013. At the date of registration of the disputed domain name, the Complainant’s FRANKE trademark was already well-known worldwide, including in Turkey, for many years”. \r\n\r\nIn addition, the website invites visitors to contact Respondent via the telephone number 444 0 275. See WIPO Case No. D2015-1024 Steven Madden, Ltd. v. Daniel Monroy where Respondent collected personal information from Internet users visiting the website (name, phone number, email address, age et cetera) who filled out a form, where the Panel noted that: “users presumably would not provide such data unless they believe they are dealing with Complainant or with a representative of Complainant… since personal data are a valuable commodity, eliciting such data as described is not a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers, pursuant to Policy paragraph 4(c)(iii)”. This finding should also apply here declaring that Respondent’s attempt to “phish” for users’ personal information is neither a bona fide offering of goods and services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy.\r\n\r\nFollowing Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ASD, Inc. WIPO Case No. D2001–0903, the use of a trademark as a domain name by an authorized or non-authorized third party is only to be regarded as a bona fide offering of goods or services within the meaning of paragraph 4(c) of the Policy if the following conditions are satisfied:\r\n\r\n(i) the respondent must actually be offering the goods or services at issue;\r\n(ii) the respondent must use the site to sell only the trademarked goods or services;\r\n(iii) the site must accurately and prominently disclose the registrant’s relationship with the trademark holder; and\r\n(iv) the respondent must not try to “corner the market” in domain names that reflect the trademark.\r\n\r\nAs mentioned previously, the Respondent fails all of these tests, namely:\r\n\r\n•\tFirstly, Respondent is not selling the Complainant’s products or services through the Disputed domain name, but rather appears to be offering an appliance repair and maintenance service;\r\n•\tSecondly, Respondent does not accurately and prominently disclose the relationship with Complainant on the challenged pages. On the website connected to Disputed domain name the use of the Franke logotype prominently on the top left hand corner creates the immediate and pervasive impressions that the website is the official site of Complainant. There is only a small statement of sorts, at the bottom of the page in pale type which is difficult to read. The disclaimer merely states “© Franke Beyaz Eşya Tamir Servisi Sitede bulunan logo ve resimler ilgili firmanın tescilli markasıdır” which means, according to Google Translate, “© Franke White Goods Repair Service The logo and pictures on the site are registered trademarks of the respective company.” Clearly this does not disclose the non-existent relationship between Respondent and Complainant, but rather reinforces the impression that Respondent is somehow related to or authorized by Complainant, which is not the case.\r\n•\tOn the other hand, the use of the logo and Word mark FRANKE proves that Respondent had prior knowledge of the Complainant’s trademark and tried to take advantage of an association with the business of Complainant;\r\n•\tFurther, Respondent is depriving the Complainant of reflecting its own mark in the Domain Name; and,\r\n•\tFinally, Respondent presents themselves as the trademark owner by using Complainant`s official FRANKE trademark (word trademark in color).\r\n\r\nRespondent's use of the Disputed domain name creates an overall impression that they are the Complainant. In the present case, Respondent does meet all the Oki Data criteria. It is undeniable that Respondent was aware of Complainant’s marks prior to the acquisition of the Disputed domain name and the establishment of Respondent’s website. Respondent has made no claims to either having any relevant prior rights of its own, or to having become commonly known by the Disputed domain name. Clearly, Respondent is not known by the Disputed domain name, nor does Respondent claim to have made legitimate, non-commercial use of the Disputed domain name.\r\nRespondent has been granted several opportunities to present some compelling arguments that it has rights in the Disputed domain name but has failed to do so. This behavior coupled with the use of the Disputed domain name cannot be considered as legitimate use of the Disputed domain name.  \r\n\r\niii) THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME WAS REGISTERED AND IS BEING USED IN BAD FAITH \r\n\r\nTHE DOMAIN NAME WAS REGISTERED IN BAD FAITH \r\n\r\nIt has to be highlighted that Complainant’s trademarks predate the registration of the Disputed domain name and Respondent has never been authorized by Complainant to register the Disputed domain name. In light of the website content, it is clear that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s trade mark at the time of registration and, therefore, the Disputed domain name was registered in bad faith. \r\n\r\nTHE DOMAIN NAME IS BEING USED IN BAD FAITH \r\n\r\nComplainant tried to contact Respondent on July 03, 2017 through a cease and desist letter. A follow up and final reminder were sent respectively on July 14 and 20, 2017. The letter was sent to the email address listed in the whois record and to the email address listed on the website associated with the Disputed domain name. In the cease and desist letter, Complainant advised Respondent that the unauthorized use of its trademarks within the Disputed domain name violated their trademark rights and Complainant requested a voluntary transfer of the Disputed domain name. However, no reply was received. Respondent has simply disregarded such communications. Since the efforts of trying to solve the matter amicably were unsuccessful, Complainant chose to file a complaint according to the UDRP process. It has been mentioned in earlier cases that the failure of a respondent to respond to a cease and desist letter, or a similar attempt at contact, has been considered relevant in a finding of bad faith, e.g., News Group Newspapers Limited and News Network Limited v. Momm Amed Ia, WIPO Case No. D2000-1623; Nike, Inc. v. Azumano Travel, WIPO Case No. D2000-1598; and America Online, Inc. v. Antonio R. Diaz, WIPO Case No. D2000-1460.   \r\n\r\nTHE WEBSITE\r\n\r\nIn the WIPO case no. D2014-1010 M. & B. Marchi e Brevetti Srl - Limited Liability Company v. A Gurbulak As \/ Webbilisimhizmetleri \/ Domain Admin, Privacy Protection Service INC d\/b\/a PrivacyProtect.org \/ Zafer Gurbulak concerning among others the domain names <ankaraaristonservisi.net>, <ankaraaristonservisleri.com>, <ankaraaristonservisleri.net> where similar circumstances to the current case were established, the Panel noted that: \r\n\r\n“The Respondent's active websites associated with the disputed domain names appear to offer repair services for Ariston branded products. Therefore, the Respondent was aware of the Complainant's trademark ARISTON at the time the disputed domain names were registered.”\r\n\r\n“The fact that the Respondent’s active website uses the Complainant’s trademark ARISTON multiple times in bold letters and states that the Respondent provides original spare parts with “ARISTON Service Assurance” suggests that the respondent is affiliated with the Complainant when it is actually not the case. The Panel has noted the presence of a small disclaimer on the active website but finds it insufficient in the circumstances, especially given that it is very general and does not make specific reference to the Complainant. In the circumstances, and as indicated before, the Panel considers that the use made of the active websites associated with the disputed domain names does not qualify as a bona fide offering of goods or services under the Policy.”\r\n\r\nThe same circumstances apply in this case. Further, Respondent has never been granted permission to register the Disputed domain name. Respondent takes advantage of the FRANKE trademark by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent’s products, services, website or location. \r\n\r\nFrom the Complainant’s point of view, Respondent intentionally chose the Disputed domain name based on the registered and well-known trademark in order to generate more traffic to its own business. Nowhere does Respondent disclaim an association between itself and Complainant. The Disputed domain name is currently connected to a service center website, consequently, Respondent is using the Disputed domain name to intentionally attempt to attract, for commercial gain, internet users to the website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s trademarks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of its website. This conduct has been considered as bad faith under the Policy, and other WIPO decisions have also arrived to the same conclusion, for example Philip Morris Incorporated v. Alex Tsypkin, WIPO Case No. D2002-0946, where the Panel stated:\r\n\r\n“It follows from what has been said about legitimacy that the Panel is satisfied that Respondent is using the disputed domain name intentionally to attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internauts to his web site by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of his web site. Pursuant to Policy paragraph 4(b)(iv), this constitutes evidence of both bad faith registration and bad faith use, for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii).\r\n\r\nIn the WIPO case no. D2015-0579 AB Electrolux v. Guangzhou Nan Guang Electrical Appliances Co.Ltd. concerning the domain name zanussi-china.com with similar circumstances as the current case, the Panel noted that: \r\n\r\n“The Respondent is using the Domain Name for a website with an orange and black livery, which displays the mark ZANUSSI in a large, black font in the banner and photographs of the Complainant's group's ZANUSSI products... The Panel accepts the Complainant's evidence that the Respondent's website is liable to mislead customers into believing that it is a website of the Complainant or authorized by it. This evidence is well-substantiated by the nature of the Domain Name, the absence of any statement that the Respondent is not authorized by the Complainant's group, the prominent ZANUSSI mark in the banner, the orange and black livery, and the pictures of the Complainant's group's products. Furthermore, having regard to all the circumstances, the Panel considers that it was the Respondent's intention so to mislead customers.”\r\n\r\nSimilarly, in the WIPO case no D2014-0487 Aktiebolaget Electrolux v. electroluxmedellin.com, Domain Discreet Privacy Service \/ Luis Rincon where analogous circumstances were at hand the Panel stated:\r\n\r\n“The continuing use of the disputed domain name is clearly confusing to online users who will be attracted by the inclusion of the word ELECTROLX in the disputed domain name, and who will therefore believe that they are accessing a website that is in some way associated with or authorized by the Complainant. This is not the case, and the consumer confusion is further strengthened by the fact that there are services for Electrolux products advertised on the Respondent's website without any disclaimer of association with the Respondent.”\r\n\r\nPATTERN OF CONDUCT \r\n\r\nA pattern of conduct can involve multiple UDRP cases with similar fact situations or a single case where the respondent has registered multiple domain names, which are similar to trademarks. Here, it has to be highlighted that the Respondent using its official name “Sukran Mert”, as indicated in WHOIS Lookup record, has registered 47 domain names including well-known brands such as BOSCH, MIELE and SIEMENS with the domain names. Such pattern of abusive registrations does not constitute bona fide use of the Disputed domain name and it is clear that Respondent is not in compliance with the Oki-Data rules and therefore, Respondent is capitalizing on well-known trademarks.\r\n\r\nIn the recent CAC Case No 101539, Franke Technology & Trademark vs hakan gUlsoy concerning the domain name franke-servisi.com, with similar facts involved the Panel stated:\r\n\r\n“Moreover, the Complainant points to a pattern of conduct by Respondent wherein Respondent registered 39 domain names including well-known brands such as \"BOSCH\" and \"SIEMENS\". A pattern of conduct expressly forbidden by paragraph 4(b)(ii) of the Policy. It is found that the Respondent has pattern of conduct that includes regularly registering as domain names trademark holders' trademarks. This pattern of conduct clearly demonstrates bad faith on the part of the Respondent.”\r\n\r\nThe Respondent takes advantage of the FRANKE trademark by intentionally attempting to attract visitors to the Respondent’s website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent’s website or location or a product or service on the Respondent’s website or location.\r\n\r\nTo summarize, FRANKE is a well-known trademark in the kitchen appliances industry including Turkey where the website associated with the Disputed domain name is operating as “Franke Service”. It is highly unlikely that Respondent was not aware of the rights Complainant has in the trademark and the value of said trademark, at the point of the registration. Inference of bad faith registration and use of the Disputed domain name is also given by the fact that Respondent never replied to Complainant’s cease and desist letter. It is reasonable to assume that if Respondent did have legitimate purposes in registering and using the Disputed domain name it would have responded. In addition, Respondent does not meet the Oki Data principles on all elements: lack of a distinctive disclaimer; Respondent can be regarded to corner the market preventing Complainant from operating the Disputed domain name; and they represent themselves as the trademark owner by displaying Complainant’s logo on the website. Finally, Respondent shows a pattern of abusive conduct by owning several domain names related to third party brands. Consequently, Respondent should be considered to have registered and to be using the Disputed domain name in bad faith.",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings that are pending or decided and that relate to the Disputed domain name.",
    "no_response_filed": "NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.",
    "rights": "The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the Disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i)of the Policy).",
    "no_rights_or_legitimate_interests": "The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the Respondent to have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed domain name (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(ii)of the Policy).",
    "bad_faith": "The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the Disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii)of the Policy).",
    "procedural_factors": "The Panel is satisfied that all procedural requirements under UDRP were met and there is no other reason why it would be inappropriate to provide a decision.\r\n\r\nA. Language of the decision:\r\n\r\nThe Disputed domain name's Registration Agreement is implied to be in Turkish in the Compaint. The Panel was not able to confirm this information from the Complaint petition. In any case, pursuant to the Rules, paragraph 11, unless otherwise agreed by the parties, or specified otherwise in the Registration Agreement, the language of the administrative proceeding shall be the language of the Registration Agreement. However, the Complainant submitted arguments along with the Complaint as to why the proceeding should proceed in English. The purpose of paragraph 11 of the Rules is to ensure fairness in the selection of language by giving full consideration to the parties' level of comfort with each language, the expenses to be incurred and the possibility of delay in the proceeding in the event translations are required and other relevant factors.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's request, therefore it did not express in any way that it cannot answer the allegations since it does not understand English.The Complainant has submitted its Complaint in English and supporting evidence in both in English and Turkish. Moreover, the Complainant is not a Turkish entity. Therefore, if the Complainant were required to submit all documents in Turkish, the administrative proceeding would be unduly delayed and the Complainant would have to incur substantial expenses for translation. The Respondent has not objected to the Complainant's language request and has not come forward to express any interest in this proceeding. Therefore, in consideration of the above circumstances and in the interest of fairness to both Parties, the Panel hereby decides, under paragraph 11(a) of the Rules, that English shall be the language of administrative proceeding in this case.At this point, the Panel refers to Groupe Industriel Marcel Dassault, Dassault Aviation v. Mr. Minwoo Park, WIPO Case No. D2003-0989; Deutsche Messe AG v. Kim Hyungho, WIPO Case No. D2003-0679; and Zappos.com, Inc. v. Zufu aka Huahaotrade, WIPO Case No. D2008-1191. The Panel finds that in the circumstances of this case, paragraph 11 of the Rules is best served by allowing this proceeding to be conducted in English.",
    "decision": "Accepted",
    "panelists": [
        "Mrs Selma Ünlü"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2017-10-24 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant in this administrative proceeding, Franke Technology and Trademark Ltd, has entered into Turkish market in 1999 and since then it has been operating actively in the kitchen appliances industry through its Turkish subsidiary Franke Mutfak ve Banyo Sistemleri San.ve Tic. A.Ş in Turkey. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant has registered the word and figurative trademark \"FRANKE\" in several classes in many jurisdictions, including in Turkey. The first \"FRANKE\" trademark in Turkey was registered in 1992 which is before many years from the registration of the Disputed domain name. The Complainant's \"FRANKE\" trademark is considered as a well-known trademark as proved by the annexes to the Complaint and as accepted within the prior UDRP decisions in relation to the \"FRANKE\" trademark.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant has registered domain names under generic Top-Level Domains (\"gTLD\") and country-code Top-Level Domains (\"ccTLD\") containing the trademark \"FRANKE\", e.g., <franke.com> , <franke.net> and <franke.com.tr>. The registration date of these domain names shows that these were held long before the registration of the Disputed domain name as the first domain name of the Complainant (i.e., <franke.com>), was created on March 18, 1996, according to the WhoIs records.",
    "decision_domains": {
        "FRANKE-4440275.COM": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}