In a pretty troubling one member UDRP WIPO decision a trademark holder of a turkey trademark first registered in 2000 was awarded the domain name Tupras.com which was registered in 1996.
The panel seemed to award the domain name based solely that the owner of the domain name Mehmet Kahveci, “has a long history of registering domain names that correspond to the name of well known Turkish companies”
While the panel acknowledged that the domain name was registered a very long time ago calling it:
“One remarkable feature of this case is that the Domain Name was registered as long ago as 1996.”
“The size of the Complainant is such that the Panel is persuaded that (at least in Turkey) the term “Tüpraş” is a well known one that is associated with the Complainant. The obvious inference is that the Domain Name was both registered and is being used with a view to take unfair advantage in some form of other (whether that be by way of sale or otherwise) of the reputation and goodwill developed by the Complainant in that term.”
“This was not only many years prior to these proceedings but several years before any of the registered trade marks relied upon by the Complainant were filed. Nevertheless, the Panel does not think that this matters. ”
“First, (although there are some panelists that disagree), most panels have not recognized that any doctrine or defense of laches apples under the Policy;
“Further, even if such a doctrine were allowed, it is highly questionable that it would apply on the particular facts of this case.
“Second, so far as the respective timing of the registrations of the Domain Name and the relevant registered trade marks are concerned, the fact that the Domain Name pre-dates the marks is not fatal in this particular case.
“It is sometimes argued that it must be fatal because it is not possible for the respondent to have been aware of the complainant’s marks at the time of registration of the Domain Name if at the time of registration of the domain name those marks did not yet exist. However, things are not quite that simple.
“Even though there appears to have been a four year gap between the registration of the Domain Name and the registration of the first trade mark that is relied upon by the Complainant in this case, the test is satisfied in this case.
“This is so given that the term “Tüpraş” had been extensively used by the Complainant’s business possibly as long ago as the 1950s and in any event at least since 1983.”
For us the cases is very troubling.
The trademarks in this case are troubling.
The earliest trademark in 2000 seems to be a design mark covering the logo of the company more than the words of Tupras.
The second Turkish trademark registered in September 27, 2006, also seems to be a design mark for another logo.
The third Turkish registered trademark is dated November 11, 2012 but that is for the term “Tupras Rafine” not just Tupras.
The company’s own website, Tupras.com.tr was registered on February 18, 1997.
The Domain Name Tupras.com was registered on February 6, 1996 so a year before the complainants own site was registered, four years before the design trademark.
While we have noted that it harmful to domain registrants to have a series of UDRP loses, the facts of this particular case does not support the findings of the sole panelist Matthew S. Harris in our opinion
One can only shake their head, and wonder what the amount of the bribe the panelist received, was.
just shameful
There is nothing troubling about this decision.
1. There was no identified registrant of the domain name. After the WHOIS privacy was lifted, this was the WHOIS data:
Registrant Name:
Registrant Organization:
Registrant Street:
Registrant City:
Registrant State/Province:
Registrant Postal Code:
Registrant Country:
Admin Name:
Admin Organization:
Admin Street:
Admin City:
Admin State/Province:
Admin Postal Code:
Admin Country:
Admin Phone:
Admin Fax:
Admin Email: mailto:mehmetkahveci@msn.com
Okay, that’s bullshit right there.
2. The company in question is the largest company in Turkey, and has been for a very long time. “The Complainant took its current form in November 1983. It is Turkey’s largest industrial enterprise, operating four oil refineries with a total of 28.1 million tons annual crude oil processing capacity.”
3. The email address, at least, in the bullshit WHOIS data corresponds to a guy in Turkey who regularly registers domain names corresponding to large companies in Turkey.
4. Nobody showed up to explain these circumstances. I am, as always, surprised at the shock over “Some guy didn’t show up to defend himself, and lost.” That’s really not much of a surprise.
However, it doesn’t look like there was much of a defense to be had. The obsessive fascination with trademark registration continues to be a symptom of some kind of “voodoo law” endemic among domainers. Registration of trademarks can frequently be important, and particularly when it is the only evidence on which a complaint is based. But in a situation such as this case, where we’re talking about the largest company in Turkey, which was certainly around at the time the domain name was registered and most likely known to a Turk who had a habit of registering the names of large Turkish companies, then can any of the outraged folks here explain to me (a) just why this guy registered the domain name, and (b) what was he using it for?
Maybe there is some other explanation, but in the absence of anyone actually showing up in the proceeding and providing it, the facts look pretty simple.
Yet again, failure to present a defense, or perhaps even to have a valid defense to present, results in transfer of a domain name. How shocking.
Very bad precedent, indeed. I’m also with Grim on this one: How much was the bribe?
And one other thing: One person is not a panel; one person is a single human being, out of the other 7-billion on the planet, who holds sway over the entire business future of another. So, can we stop calling one-member rulings “panel decisions”?