{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-101182",
    "time_of_filling": "2016-02-23 11:34:04",
    "domain_names": [
        "takasbank.com"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "Lada Válková (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "İSTANBUL TAKAS VE SAKLAMA BANKASI ANONİM ŞİRKETİ"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "Net Koruma Consultancy Services",
    "respondent": [
        "sukru haluk argun"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "The Complainant is a banking institution located in Turkey. The Complainant has been providing services since 1991, although using the name \"Takasbank\" since 1996.  The Complainant is the owner of several trade mark registrations in Turkey in the term \"TAKASBANK\" since 2004 (as listed above). The Complainant's main website is available at www.takasbank.com.tr.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent is an individual based in Turkey that appears to be in the business of acquiring and selling domain names.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name is <takasbank.com> (the Domain Name).  It was acquired by the Respondent on 28 April 1999 and is resolving to a website where the Domain Name is being offered for sale by a company called Investi Grup Ltd. ",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings the Panel which are pending or decided and which relate to the Domain Name. ",
    "no_response_filed": "PARTIES' CONTENTIONS:\r\n\r\nCOMPLAINANT'S COMPLAINT\r\n\r\nThe Complainant asserts that \"Takasbank\" is one of the biggest and most valued banks of Turkey and has been providing its services since 1992.   The Complainant further submits that \"settlement transactions (the actions to be taken regarding payments to be made related with the commitments and delivery of securities regarding the transactions realized in capital markets) were being realized between transaction parties without intermediation between the years 1986 and 1988. Between the years 1988 and 1992, the settlement and custody transactions were performed by a department within the Stock Exchange and were transferred and entrusted in 1992 to ISE Settlement and Custody Inc., a company founded as a partnership between the ISE and its members. Increasing both the diversity and the range of its services by taking investment banking license on 1996, ISE Settlement and Custody Bank, Inc. founded Central Registry Agency (CRA) in 2005 together with the ISE for the dematerialization and custody transactions of securities traded at the ISE markets\".\r\n\r\nThe Complainant further submits that \"due to the name change of the bank’s biggest shareholder \"Istanbul Stock Exchange (ISE)\" to \"Borsa İstanbul Inc.(BİAŞ)”, the name of Takasbank “ISE Settlement and Custody Bank Inc.\" was changed to \"Istanbul Clearing, Settlement and Custody Bank Inc.-Takasbank\" as of 11 April 2013\".\r\n\r\nThe Complainant further asserts that \"according to the Articles of Incorporation of \"Istanbul Clearing, Settlement and Custody Bank Bank Inc.-Takasbank\", the major purpose and activity of the bank is to provide clearing, settlement and custody services within the framework of capital market and related exchange regulations as well as rendering investment banking services within the scope of the Banking Law and other banking regulations\". \r\n\r\nThe Complainant referred to its website available at www.takasbank.com.tr for more information about the Complainant and its activity.  The Complainant also provided a history line since 1992. \r\n\r\nIdentity or confusing similarity\r\n\r\nThe Complainant submits that the Domain Name is identical to its \"Takasbank\" business name, trade mark and domain name and that \"Takasbank\" is a very well-known bank in Turkey that has built up considerable renown since 1992.    In this regard, the Complainant asserts that it registered “Takasbank” on 8 August 1995 as a business name, but that it started its business on 9 July 1991. The Complainant states that its “Operating Certificate” is provided as Annex to the Complaint (although this annex was not attached to the Complaint but was produced further to the Panel's Administrative Procedural Order).\r\n\r\nThe Complainant further asserts that it is the registered owner of \"Takasbank\" trade mark registration, namely Turkish Trade mark No.  2003 18086 and 2012 97928 (as listed above).  In addition, the Complainant asserts that it registered the domain name <takasbank.com.tr> on 24 July 1998 and that it has been actively using it since that date. The Complainant has provided evidence of its trade mark and domain name registrations.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant also states that its \"Takasbank\" trade marks and domain name have been used for years and have reached a high level of consumer recognition.  Therefore, the Complainant argues that it has \"a priority right on the term  “Takasbank” based on the registration of its business name, trade marks and domain name dating back to 1991.  The Complainant further asserts that the likelihood of confusion between the Domain Name and the Complainant's trade marks is high.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant therefore asserts that the Domain Name is identical to the Complainant’s trade marks and domain name. \r\n\r\nNo rights or legitimate interests\r\n\r\nThe Complainant asserts that the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name.  The Complainant asserts that the Respondent does not own a trade mark registration or application nor has any personal rights in the term \"Takasbank\".  The Complainant further asserts that the Respondent does not have any permission or license to use its TAKASBANK trade mark.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant further submits that there is no evidence that the Respondent has used the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, and that the Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name. The Complainant also asserts that the Respondent is not making a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the Domain Name. The Complainant further asserts that the Respondent's motive for registering the Domain Name is to take unfair advantage of the Complainant's rights.\r\n\r\nBad faith registration and use\r\n\r\nThe Complainant asserts that over the past years it has become a symbol of quality in banking, insurance and retirement sector and that it has become well known and recognized in the sector throughout Turkey and the world.  It thus submits that the Domain Name was registered with the aim of gaining unduly benefit from the reputation acquired by the Complainant over the years.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant submits that \"Takasbank\" is a term that was created by the Complainant in 1991 and does not have a meaning for banking services.  Accordingly, the Complainant argues that the term \"Takasbank\" is not a necessary term in the relevant sector and that the Respondent does not have a right to use it without the Complainant's consent.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant further submits that the Respondent undoubtedly had knowledge of the Complainant's trade mark at the time of registration of the Domain Name and that as such the Domain Name was registered by the Respondent in bad faith. The Complainant relies on the decision Builder’s Best, Inc. v. Yoshiki Okad, WIPO Case No. D2004-0748 (which states that \"in order to find bad faith, there must be some evidence of knowledge that the Respondent knew the domain name was identical or similar to the Complainant’s mark.\"). \r\n\r\nThe Complainant further asserts that the Respondent's offer to sell the Domain Name on the associated website clearly proves the Respondent's bad faith. A screen shot of the website associated with the Domain Name is provided as an annex to the Complaint.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant further submits that the Respondent is using the Domain Name to  intentionally attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to his 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, in accordance with paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant further asserts that the Internet Archive records available at www.archive.org for the Domain Name also prove the Respondent's bad faith. The Complainant underlines that the Internet Archive show that on 7 February 2003 the Respondent was using the Domain Name to resolve to a website offering several domain names for sale, including the Domain Name as well as <microsoftco.com>, <microsoftca.com> and <yapikredibank.com>, amongst others. The Complainant asserts that \"Yapı Kredi\" is also one of the most important banks of Turkey and that this proves that the Respondent is registering domain names to sell them for profit.  The Complainant also refers to a second record from the Internet Archive dated 29 January 2011 showing that the Respondent was selling approximately 100 domain names. The Complainant asserts that this also proves the Respondent's bad faith.  The Complainant therefore submits that by selling domain names through the website www.takasbank.com, the Complainant's reputation is being severely harmed and may cause the bank to lose its customers, as it gives the impression to customers that the Complainant is selling domain names \r\n\r\nRESPONDENT'S RESPONSE\r\n\r\nThe Respondent submits that the history of the Complainant is not only irrelevant but also contradictory in terms of its content and may even be considered as evidence of the Respondent's rights in the Domain Name.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent asserts that he is the manager of Invest Grup Co.Ltd, a company in the business of information technology, website design, hosting, software applications together with web portal development and sales, and Internet advertising since the year 1999.  The Respondent asserts that as of the late 1990’s he has registered many domain names with the intention to build web operations at the respective domain names. The Respondent asserts that his company has developed and operated one of Turkey's first classified ad websites in the early 2000, followed by firsatyagmuru.com (covering public\/private company campaign dates, entry specifications, lottery announcements and results), firsatabak.com (special priced single spot item sales), kentport.com (travel, dining, entertainment sharing), filmkolik.com (movies and theatres, films) towards the mid years of 2000. The Respondent further asserts that this fact may be checked by a background check of these domain names.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent further asserts that the Domain Name was purchased in the year 1999 with the intention to build one of Turkeys first and foremost \"barter\" website operations for the public. The Respondent further asserts as follows:\r\n\r\n\"However, as has been our start up policy on all portal operation projects, while preparing the background details and software for this project, we have also examined 'similar' websites that have acted earlier than us on this particular (sic) subject. Having noticed by the mid 2000’s that web based barter operations in Turkey are not receiving the attention, nor providing the turnover expected, we have halted our project preparations but have kept the domain and put it up for sale along with some of our domain investments.  [The Domain Name] has thus been put up for sale from time to time since we have made a considerable investment in terms of man hours (let alone the annual renewal fees paid since 1999) and with the possibility of making use of the domain at a later date.\r\n\r\nAs the economy has become shaky in many parts of the world in the recent years, Turkey has had its fair share of this turmoil, and thus, our board of directors decided in 2015 to suspend quite a number of our web operations mentioned above, keeping a few local oriented operations such as Bodrumdoktor.com, Bodrumilanlar.com, Veterinerbodrum.com, and have put up some of our previously used and non operative domains for sale from time to time in the previous years. This we have done, as it is not forbidden in the domain market to sell any domains by investors\/operators\/ I.T. companies\". \r\n\r\nThe Respondent further asserts that \"We have been approached by many investors regarding all of our domains for sale, including Takasbank, however, our basic business ethic and policy is to sell a previously operated and\/or null domain based on the man hour\/  financial\/ projectual investment made on them. So far, Takasbank has not received any mutually agreeable figure between demanding parties and us. If we cannot sell any one of our domains based on the above policy, we intend to keep them for a possible future use as a 'Business' operation\".\r\n\r\nThe Respondent further asserts that the Complainant's local trade marks were registered on 11 July 2003, whilst the Domain Name was registered on 28 April 1999, by the Respondent, acting as shareholder and manager of Invest Grup Co. Ltd.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent further states that the name \"Takasbank\" was and is only known to a small circle of Turkish stock market investors and is not a well-known, famous mark in general.  The Respondent also asserts that \"Takasbank\" is not necessarily a trade name and\/or business identifier, as the Complainant deals mainly in stock protection services on behalf of stock market investors.  The Respondent further submits that the Complainant's company name has no relevance to the name “Takas” in Turkish, and has been changed twice, once in 2005 and another in 2013 by the Complainant.  Finally, the Respondent also asserts that the name “takas” means “barter” in Turkish, and has no relation whatsoever to the Complainant's trade marks.\r\n\r\nCOMPLAINANT'S UNSOLICITED ADDITIONAL SUBMISSION\r\n\r\nIn response to the Respondent's assertion that the name \"takas\" means \"barter\" in English and has no clear relation to the Complainant, the Complainant underlines that it has several trade mark registrations in class 36 which cover \"financial and monetary services\".  The Complainant also asserts that it has a registered business name for \"takasbank\" since 1992 for the banking services.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant further asserts that the Respondent's reasons for registering the Domain Name are further evidence of the Respondent's bad faith.  The Complainant asserts that the Respondent is a Turkish citizen and that is active in investment, operating and IT sectors. For these reasons, the Complainant submits that \"there is no chance that the Respondent did not hear about the Complainant while having an active business in investment sector\".  The Complainant also asserts that the Respondent's main business is to register third party domain names and that this is also evidence of the Respondent's bad faith.\r\n\r\nRESPONDENT'S REPLY TO COMPLAINANT'S UNSOLICITED ADDITIONAL SUBMISSION\r\n\r\nThe Respondent asserts the term \"barter\" indeed has no relevance to banking and or financing in general and is most publicly used for the barter of \"goods\". \r\n\r\nThe Respondent further asserts that the Complainant does not have trade mark rights since the early 1990s and that \"local\" trade mark registrations are insufficient to claim rights on a \".com\", \".net\", \".org\" or any international domain name, registered by its initial owner\/registrant.  \r\n\r\nThe Respondent further states the fact that it has other domain names up for sale is irrelevant to the present case. Furthermore, the Respondent underlined that the reason why the domain names have been put up for sale have already been provided in the Respondent's Response. \r\n\r\nThe Respondent thus asserts that the Complainant's unsolicited additional submission consists of a misleading rewording of the Complainant's original Complaint.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent also states that he never had the intention to keep the Domain Name but that he decided to put it up for sale to cover the initial man hours plus renewal costs incurred for the project that his company was intending to launch (but that ultimately was not launched given the unprofitable marked conditions for the project).  \r\n\r\nThe Respondent further asserts that the Complainant contacted the Respondent to obtain the transfer of the Domain Name prior to the filing of the Complaint and that the Respondent never said he would not do so as long as he was able to recover the approximate costs involved for the registration of the Domain Name.\r\n\r\nFinally, the Respondent asserts that the flexibility shown towards the Complainant regarding the payment of fees after the deadline may be considered as favouritism.\r\n\r\nThe Panel has accepted the Complainant's and the Respondent's unsolicited submissions in the interest of fairness.\r\n\r\nADDITIONAL SUBMISSION REQUESTED BY THE PANEL\r\n\r\nParagraph 12 of the Rules provides that \"in addition to the complaint and the response, the Panel may request, in its sole discretion, further statements or documents from either of the Parties\".\r\n\r\nOn 8 April 2016, the Panel issued a procedural order requesting the Complainant to produce an annex that was meant to be attached to the Complaint but did not appear on the record, namely Annex 2 to the Complaint, which contained the \"operation certificate\" of the Complainant.  The Panel gave the Complainant 7 working days to produce such evidence and gave the Respondent an opportunity to comment specifically in relation to the evidence submitted by the Complainant. \r\n\r\nOn 11 April 2016, the Respondent supplied an unsolicited submission reproduced as follows:\r\n\r\n\"We ask that the appointed panelist take note of this important fact in his requirement from complainant.  His requirement is as such; To provide \"The 'Operation Certificate' of the Complainant is provided as Annex 2\".\r\n\r\nIn our country there is no such document as \"an operation certificate\", this would only be something the complainant may prepare on their own with any date and with no factual basis, as we may do so also.\r\n\r\nWhat the requirement should be (even though it also does not constitute a basis for the final decision) is the actual \"Trademark Certificate\" to be provided by the Trademark Institute of the Republic of Turkey before 1999\".\r\n\r\nOn 18 April 2016, the Complainant produced the requested evidence.  \r\n\r\nOn 19 April 2016, the Respondent responded as follows:\r\n\r\n\"The 'operation documents' provided by the complainant on 18.04.2016 is NOT a trademark\r\ncertificate (even though even a valid certificate is no longer considered a right to a domain registered by another party..).\r\n\r\nWhat they provided in place of a real Trademark Certificate, is a document provided to any company simply based on their declaration of services, and the complainant allegedly tries to use this in place of an official trademark certificate to divert the opinion of the Arbitrator\".",
    "rights": "The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown that the 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 that the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in respect of the 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 that the 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": [
        "David Taylor"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2016-05-07 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant is the owner of the following trade mark registrations in connection with financial and banking services, registered with the Turkish Patent Institute:\r\n\r\n-\tTurkish Trade mark No. 2003 18086, in TAKASBANK, applied for on 11 July 2003 and registered on 17 November 2004 (covering class 36); and\r\n\r\n-\tTurkish Trade mark No. 2012 97928, in TAKASBANK, applied for 23 November 2012 and registered on 17 January 2014 (covering classes 36, 38 and 42).\r\n\r\nThe Complainant also relies on its business name as well as the domain name <takasbank.com.tr>, which it registered on 24 July 1998 and resolves to its main website available at www.takasbank.com.tr.  \r\n",
    "decision_domains": {
        "TAKASBANK.COM": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}