{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-101839",
    "time_of_filling": "2018-01-10 09:31:23",
    "domain_names": [
        "FrankeServis.info"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "  Iveta Špiclová   (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "Franke Technology and Trademark Ltd"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "BrandIT GmbH",
    "respondent": [
        "Caner TANAOBA \/ Caner TANAOBA"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "The Complainant is a Swiss company engaged in the business of manufacturing and distributing kitchen appliances. The business has been conducted since 1911 and it now operates globally, including at the website www.franke.com.  The Complainant 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 a local official website in Turkey at www.franke.com.tr. The worldwide group operates in 37 countries and it is substantial and successful.\r\n\r\nThe principal trademark under which the Complainant operates is FRANKE, which is registered extensively throughout the world, including in Turkey, where the Complainant has a subsidiary business and where the Respondent appears to be domiciled.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant has also registered and used a large number of domain names which include the word \"franke\" which are also used in its business.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant has been concerned that the Respondent has registered the Disputed Domain Name which it did on November 16, 2017. The evidence from the Registrar verification is that the registrant of the Disputed Domain Name is the Respondent. The Respondent has used the Disputed Domain Name for an active website which purports to offer repairs and service within Turkey of various brands of products including the Complainant's products, which it does by extensive use of the Complainant's FRANKE trademark on the website. In fact, the Respondent is not an authorised service provider for the Complainant's products.\r\n\r\nTo stop this conduct the Complainant had a cease and desist letter sent to it, but the letter has been ignored by the Respondent.\r\n\r\nAs a last resort, the Complainant has therefore instituted this proceeding in which it requests that the Disputed Domain Name be transferred to it.  \r\n \r\n\r\n",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "None of which the Panel is aware.",
    "no_response_filed": "PARTIES' CONTENTIONS:\r\n\r\nCOMPLAINANT:\r\n\r\ni) THE DOMAIN NAME IS CONFUSINGLY SIMILAR TO THE FRANKE TRADEMARK\r\n\r\nThe domain name <frankeservis.info> (hereinafter referred to as the “ Disputed Domain Name”), registered on November 16, 2017, directly and entirely incorporates Complainant’s well-known, registered trademark FRANKE.\r\n\r\nIt also incorporates a form of the Turkish word “servisi”, meaning “service”, which emphasises the impression that the Respondent is  affiliated with Complainant, and that the Respondent is somehow authorised to do business in Turkey using Complainant`s trademark, which it is not. \r\n\r\nThe inclusion of the FRANKE trademark and the word \"servis\" in the Disputed Domain Name  necessarily imply that it may well be an official domain name of the Complainant, based on the FRANKE trademark, thus making it confusingly similar to the trademark.\r\n\r\nThat submission is well supported by previous UDRP decisions.\r\n\r\nMoreover, the addition of the top-level suffix \".info\" in the disputed domain name should  be disregarded under the confusing similarity test as it does not add any distinctiveness to the Disputed Domain Name. \r\n\r\nAccordingly, the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the registered trademark FRANKE in which the Complainant has rights. \r\n\r\nii) THE RESPONDENT HAS NO RIGHTS OR LEGITIMATE INTERESTS IN RESPECT OF THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME \r\n\r\nThe Complainant has not found that Respondent is commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name. The WHOIS information noting that “Caner TANAOBA\" is the registrant of the domain name is evidence that Respondent is known by that name and thus is not commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name. \r\n\r\nRespondent has not by virtue of the content of the website, nor by its use of the domain name shown that the domain name will be used in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. There 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 sought to make itself a distinctive identifier associated with the term FRANKE and that the intention of the Respondent is to take advantage of an apparent association between the Disputed Domain Name and the Complainant and its business. \r\n\r\nThis can be seen by an examination of the website to which the Disputed Domain Name resolves. Respondent is using the Disputed Domain Name to attract internet users to its website where Respondent states that it is “Franke Servisi Teknik Servis”, which, translated by the Google Translator mean Franke Service Technical Service. In other words, the Respondent is claiming on its website that it can offer technical servicing for Franke products, which it is not authorized to do.\r\n\r\nA common misunderstanding with authorized or non-authorized repair centers is that they believe that they can freely register domain names incorporating the trademark name of the products for which they are offering services. In the present case, the Respondent is not an authorized repair center and had no authority to offer such services. \r\n\r\nThe 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 which there is not.\r\n\r\nThe trademark FRANKE has already been considered by previous UDRP cases as a well-known trademark and it is inconceivable that Respondent did not know of its existence. The Complainant therefore relies on the decision in Franke Technology and Trademark Ltd v. NicProxy Customer Whois Privacy Protection Service, WIPO Case D20216-0686 to that effect. In addition, the website invites visitors to contact Respondent via the telephone number 444 36 89. These matters show the Respondent had embarked on a phishing expedition to obtain valuable personal information. It is therefore submitted and it is consistent with prior decisions, that Respondent’s attempt to phish for users’ personal information is neither a bona fide offering of goods and services nor a legitimate non-commercial or fair use pursuant to Policy.\r\n\r\nThe facts of the present case are such that the Respondent could not rely on the principles set out in Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ASD, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2001–0903, to show that it had a right or legitimate interest in the domain name, even if it had filed a Response. That is so because 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. Also, Respondent does not accurately and prominently disclose its relationship with Complainant. Rather, the use of the Franke logotype prominently on the top left hand corner of the website creates the immediate and pervasive impression that the website is the official site of Complainant. There is only a small disclaimer of sorts, at the bottom of the page in pale type which is difficult to read; the disclaimed is ineffective and reinforces the impression that Respondent is somehow related to or authorized by Complainant, which is not the case.\r\n\r\nMoreover, the use of the word mark FRANKE in red proves that the Respondent had prior knowledge of the Complainant’s trademark and tried to take advantage of an association with the business of the Complainant.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent is also depriving the Complainant of the ability to reflect its own mark in the Disputed Domain Name, and Respondent presents itself as the trademark owner by using Complainant`s official FRANKE trademark.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent's use of the Disputed Domain Name creates an overall impression that it is the Complainant. Respondent must have been aware of Complainant’s marks prior to the registration of the Disputed Domain Name and the establishment of Respondent’s website. The 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, the Respondent is not known by the Disputed Domain Name, nor does the Respondent claim to have made legitimate, non-commercial use of the Disputed Domain Name.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent 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. \r\n\r\nOn all the facts, it is clear that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed  Domain Name.  \r\n\r\n\r\niii) THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME WAS REGISTERED AND IS BEING USED IN BAD FAITH \r\n\r\nTHE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES WAS REGISTERED IN BAD FAITH \r\n\r\nThe Complainant’s trademark predates the registration of the Domain Name and the 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\nMoreover, the identity of the Respondent was hidden before filing this complaint through an identity protection service which is evidence of bad faith registration. \r\n\r\nTHE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME IS BEING USED IN BAD FAITH \r\n\r\nComplainant tried to contact Respondent on December 4, 2017 through a cease and desist letter. A follow up and final reminders were sent respectively on December 11 & 18, 2017. The letter was sent to the e-mail address listed in the whois record and to the e-mail 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.\r\n\r\nSince 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 decisions that the failure of a respondent to respond to a cease and desist letter, or a similar attempt at contact, is relevant to a finding of bad faith.   \r\n\r\nMoreover, the 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 a 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 the Complainant. \r\n\r\nThe Disputed Domain Name is currently connected to a service center website and, 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 in previous UDRP cases as bad faith under the Policy. \r\n\r\nThe Respondent is clearly taking 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\nThe Respondent has also engaged in a pattern of conduct of abusive registration of domain names which shows the Respondent's conduct does not constitute a bona fide use of the Disputed Domain Name and the Respondent is capitalizing on the well-known trademarks of others, which is indicative of bad faith.\r\n\r\nTo summarize, FRANKE is a well-known trademark in the kitchen appliances industry including in Turkey where the website associated with the Disputed Domain Name is operating as Franke Service. It is highly unlikely that Respondent was not aware at the time of the registration of the Disputed Domain Name that the Complainant had rights in the trademark and the value of the trademark.\r\n\r\nInference of bad faith registration and use of the Disputed Domain Name is also given by the fact that Respondent did not reply 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.\r\n\r\nConsequently, Respondent should be considered to have registered and to be using the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith.\r\n\r\nRESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nThe Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions and is in default.\r\n\r\nThe Panel notes the observations in the recent decision in similar circumstances in Case No 100053, Enterprise Rent-a-Car Company v. Blupea c\/o Janepanas, Sirinarin and will therefore decide this proceeding on the basis of the Complainant’s submissions, drawing such inferences from the Respondent’s default that are considered appropriate according to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules. It is also noted in that decision that it was said in Enterprise Rent-A-Car Company v. Marco Costa, NAF case No. 908572, that “the Panel is entitled to accept all reasonable allegations and inferences set forth in the Complaint as true unless the evidence is clearly contradictory”. The Panel will therefore proceed along those lines.",
    "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.",
    "decision": "Accepted",
    "panelists": [
        "The Hon. Neil Brown, QC"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2018-02-21 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant relies on three registered trademarks for FRANKE and has adduced evidence which the Panel accepts verifying those registrations. The three trademarks are:\r\n\r\n1. TM: FRANKE\t\r\nWIPO Reg. No: IR 975860\t\r\nClass: 6; 11; 20; 21; 37\t\r\nDate of registration: June 14, 2007 (inc. Turkey)\r\n\r\n2. TM: FRANKE\r\nWIPO Reg. No: IR 872557\t\r\nClass: 6; 11; 21; \t\r\nDate of registration: February 28, 2005 (inc. Turkey)\r\n\r\n3.TM: FRANKE\t\r\nTurkey Reg. No: Turkish national no. 135579\t\r\nClass: 6-7,9,11,19, 20-21\r\nDate of registration: September 23, 1992\r\n\r\nThe foregoing trademarks will be referred to collectively in this decision as \"the FRANKE trademark.\"\r\n\r\nEvidence has been adduced by the Complainant which the Panel accepts that the first and second of the foregoing registrations are registered in the name of the Complainant and that the third of the registrations is registered in the name of a Turkish subsidiary of the Complainant, namely Franke Water Systems AG. The Panel therefore finds that the Complainant has rights in each of the trademarks.",
    "decision_domains": {
        "FRANKESERVIS.INFO": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}