Brentwood Holding Group Inc v. İsmet Yıldıran Çınar
Claim Number: FA2004001892268
Complainant is Brentwood Holding Group Inc (“Complainant”), represented by Alina Landver of LANDVER LAW CORPORATION, APC, California, USA. Respondent is İsmet Yıldıran Çınar (“Respondent”), Turkey.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <camsurf.online> and <chatki.online>, registered with Fbs Inc.
The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Alan L. Limbury, as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on April 16, 2020. The Forum received payment that day.
On April 17, 2020, Fbs Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <camsurf.online> and <chatki.online> domain names are registered with Fbs Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Fbs Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Fbs Inc. registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).
On April 27, 2020, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of May 18, 2020 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@camsurf.online, postmaster@chatki.online. Also on April 27, 2020, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the e-mail addresses served and the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to Respondent via post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts.
Having received no response from Respondent, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On May 21, 2020, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Alan L. Limbury as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") "to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent" through submission of Electronic and Written Notices, as defined in Rule 1 and Rule 2. Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, the Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent.
Complainant requests that the domain names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
Preliminary Issue: Language of Proceeding
The registration agreement is in Turkish. However, pursuant to UDRP Rule 11(a), the Panel finds that persuasive evidence has been adduced by Complainant to suggest the likely possibility that the Respondent is conversant and proficient in the English language. After considering the circumstance of the present case, the Panel decides that the proceeding should be in English.
A. Complainant
Complainant uses the CAMSURF and CHATKI marks in connection with video chat and dating services. Complainant has rights in the CAMSURF and CHATKI marks through their registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Respondent’s <camsurf.online> and <chatki.online> domain names are identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark as they add the domain extension “.online” to Complainant’s marks.
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <camsurf.online> and <chatki.online> domain names. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names, nor has Complainant authorized, licensed, or otherwise permitted Respondent to use the marks. Respondent fails to use the domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Rather, Respondent uses the disputed domain names and Complainant’s marks to operate commercial websites to sell services identical to Complainant’s services.
Respondent registered and uses the <camsurf.online> and <chatki.online> domain names in bad faith. Respondent incorporates Complainant’s marks in their entirety and uses the confusingly similar domain names and Complainant’s marks to attract Complainant’s customers and create confusion as to the affiliation between Complainant and Respondent. Respondent registered the domain names knowing that the popularity of Complainant’s marks would confuse users into believing Respondent is affiliated with Complainant.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant has established all the elements entitling it to relief.
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable."
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred:
(1) the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and
(2) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(3) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
In view of Respondent's failure to submit a response, the Panel shall decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant's undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(f), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and draw such inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules. The Panel is entitled to accept all reasonable allegations set forth in a complaint; however, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory or unsubstantiated arguments. See WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 at ¶ 4.3; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (“Because Complainant did not produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations [. . .] the Panel finds it appropriate to dismiss the Complaint”).
Complainant has rights in the CAMSURF and CHATKI marks through their registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office, namely CAMSURF - Reg. No. 5,257,511, registered Aug. 1, 2017 and CHATKI - Reg. No. 5,508,737, registered Jul. 3, 2018.
Respondent’s <camsurf.online> and <chatki.online> domain names wholly incorporate one of Complainant’s marks and each is identical to that mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), since the domain extension “.online” may be disregarded when considering this element.
Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy sets out three illustrative circumstances as examples which, if established by Respondent, shall demonstrate rights to or legitimate interests in the domain names for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, i.e.
(i) before any notice to Respondent of the dispute, the use by Respondent of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain names or names corresponding to the domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or
(ii) Respondent (as an individual, business or other organization) has been commonly known by the domain names, even if Respondent has acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or
(iii) Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain names, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert customers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.
Respondent registered the <camsurf.online> domain name on May 19, 2019 and the <chatki.online> domain name on July 24, 2019. They resolve to websites providing video chat and dating services that compete with those offered by Complainant, the “.online” domain extension serving to reinforce the connection between the trademark incorporated in the domain name and Complainant. Further, they claim a contact address at <camsurf.com>, which is a domain name registered to Complainant.
These circumstances, coupled with Complainant’s assertions, are sufficient to constitute a prima facie showing of absence of rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain names on the part of Respondent. The evidentiary burden therefore shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the domain names. See Neal & Massey Holdings Limited v. Gregory Ricks, FA 1549327 (Forum Apr. 12, 2014) (“Under Policy¶4(a)(ii), Complainant must first make out a prima facie case showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of an at-issue domain name and then the burden, in effect, shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests”).
Respondent has made no attempt to do so.
In the circumstances of this case, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain names.
Complainant has established this element.
(iii) the respondent has registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
(iv) by using the domain name, the respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website or other on-line location, 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 of a product or service on its website or location.
Respondent registered each of the domain names many months after Complainant registered its marks and had established an online presence for its services. Having regard to the use to which the domain names have been put, the Panel is satisfied that Respondent registered them with Complainant in mind and did so primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor and in order intentionally to attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent’s website or of a service on its website.
Accordingly, the Panel finds Respondent registered and is using the domain names in bad faith.
Complainant has established this element.
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <camsurf.online> and <chatki.online> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Alan L. Limbury, Panelist
Dated: May 25, 2020
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page