Westmore · UDRP DecisionBiletsepeti.com
The Panel ordered transfer of <biletsepeti.com>. It found the domain identical to the BİLETSEPETİ.COM trademark, accepted the unrebutted prima facie case that the Respondent lacked rights or legitimate interests, and found bad-faith registration and use under Policy paragraph 4(b)(i). The bad-faith finding rested principally on serious, evidence-supported allegations that the Respondent obtained the domain through identity theft and account hacking, together with the domain's USD 49,000 auction listing and the Respondent's failure to rebut the allegations.
The timeline behind biletsepeti.com
Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.
This decision illustrates a UDRP transfer following an alleged unauthorized takeover of a domain previously owned by the complainant. The combination of prior ownership, evidence-supported and unrebutted hacking allegations, and a high-priced auction listing enabled the Panel to characterize the acquisition as registration in bad faith and to apply the resale circumstance in Policy paragraph 4(b)(i).
Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.
WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Gökhan Demir v. Kara Welch Case No. D2020-2957 1. The Parties The Complainant is Gökhan Demir, Turkey, represented by Gün + Partners Avukatlık Bürosu, Turkey. The Respondent is Kara Welch, Turkey. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <biletsepeti.com> is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on November 9, 2020. On November 9, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On November 10, 2020, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on November 10, 2020, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on November 11, 2020. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”). In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on November 12, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was December 2, 2020. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on December 3, 2020. The Center appointed Emre Kerim Yardimci as the sole panelist in this matter on December 16, 2020. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7. 4. Factual Background The Complainant is a physical person and majority shareholder of the company Alt Global Bi̇li̇şi̇m Turi̇zm Kuyumculuk Ti̇caret Li̇mi̇ted Şi̇rketi̇ established in 2011 and specialized in travel agency services and passenger transportation services. The Complainant’s company holds several trademark registrations in Turkey: - Trademark BİLET SEPETİ no. 2009/56973 in class 39 registered on December 7, 2011; - Trademark BİLETSEPETİ no. 2014/18875 in class 41 registered on December 8, 2014; - Trademark BİLETSEPETİ.COM no. 2017/85716 in classes 42 and 43 registered on March 14, 2018; - Trademark BİLETSEPETİ.COM no. 2019/116645 in classes 35 and 36 registered on July 23, 2020. Furthermore, the Complainant held or holds the following domain names: - the disputed domain name <biletsepeti.com> which was initially registered by the Complainant on May 28, 2008, and owned by the Complainant until October 30, 2020; - <biletsepeti.com.tr> registered on February 12, 2019. The disputed domain name was allegedly acquired and thus registered on November 1, 2020 by the Respondent which is a physical person domiciled in Turkey. The Panel visited the disputed domain name on January 8, 2021 and observed that the disputed domain name does not resolve to an active website. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant requests the transfer of the disputed domain name. The Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s trademark BİLET SEPETİ. The Complainant considers that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, mainly because the Complainant has neither licensed nor otherwise authorized the Respondent to use its marks or to apply for or use any domain name incorporating the trademark BİLET SEPETİ. Finally, in addressing the question of registration and use of the disputed domain name in bad faith, the Complainant alleges that the Respondent stole the disputed domain name by hacking the identity of the Complainant through obtaining the password of the Complainant’s account before the Registrar Natro.com and then transferring the disputed domain name to the Registrar Namecheap.com and then to the Registrar GoDaddy.com. Furthermore, the fact that the disputed domain name is listed for sale for an amount of USD 49,000 and the present passive holding supports a finding of registration and use in bad faith for the intention of selling the disputed domain name. The complaint concludes that the manner in which the disputed domain name is acquired as described above supports the finding that the disputed domain name is registered and used in bad faith. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Pursuant to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant is required to prove the presence of each of the following three elements to obtain the remedy it has requested: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; (ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and, (iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar Pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, a complainant must prove that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights. The Panel finds that the Complainant satisfies this element by virtue of its registrations before the Turkish Patent and Trademark Office for the trademarks BİLETSEPETİ.COM held by the company in which the Complainant is a majority shareholder and managing director. The Panel further finds that the disputed domain name is identical to the BİLETSEPETİ.COM trademark insofar as BİLET SEPETİ is incorporated in its entirety in the disputed domain name. See section 1.7 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”). The Panel therefore finds that the Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The onus is on the Complainant to make out at least a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and it is then for the Respondent to rebut this case. The Panel accepts the Complainant’s submissions that the Respondent does not appear to be known by the disputed domain name, has not used or made demonstrable preparations to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name, and has no consent from the Complainant to use its trademark. The Respondent has not filed a Response. The Complainant has made out its prima facie case under this element of the Policy and the Respondent has failed to rebut it. Accordingly, and in view of the Panel’s findings below, the Complainant succeeds in relation to the second element of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy lists a number of circumstances which, without limitation, are deemed to be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith. The Panel notes that the allegations of the Complainant are very serious and supported by evidence and that the Respondent failed to rebut these heavy allegations as to the identity theft and hacking the account of the Complainant before the Registrar. Moreover, the fact that the disputed domain name is listed on an auction site for an amount of USD 49,000 corroborates the fact the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. The Panel further observes that the Respondent used a privacy shield. While a respondent’s use of a privacy service will not in itself constitute bad faith under the Policy, the use of the privacy shield in this case together with other elements gives rise to the suspicion that the privacy shield was used to mask the identity of the true registrant and to obstruct proceedings commenced under the Policy. From the above behavior of the Respondent, the Panel concludes, without any doubt, that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the disputed domain name to the Complainant or to a competitor of the Complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of the Respondent’s documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the disputed domain name. Therefore, in the view of these circumstances, the Panel finds that the requirement of registration and use in bad faith is satisfied, according to the Policy, paragraph 4(b)(i) and 4(a)(iii). Accordingly, the Panel finds that the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy have been met by the Complainant. 7. Decision For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain name <biletsepeti.com> be transferred to the Complainant. Emre Kerim Yardimci Sole Panelist Date: January 8, 2021
Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.
What Westmore sees around biletsepeti.com
The decision is only the record. Westmore connects it to the cases, authorities, panelists, parties and domain evidence surrounding it.
The decision is only the beginning.
You've seen what happened. Now discover the deeper intelligence behind the case, the panelist, the parties and the authorities that matter.
Go beyond the public record: see how this case has been cited, find comparable decisions, analyze the panelist and apply the relevant authorities to your Matter.
Westmore Professional · $395/month
Research with UDRP IntelligenceWestmore AI drafts an attorney-review-ready UDRP response from your facts, grounded in the exact panel and closest precedent.
$895 one-time per matter · no subscription required. Self-help drafting aid — not legal advice.
Build your responseWestmore UDRP records draw on WIPO-indexed decisions and are provided for research and informational purposes only. Not legal advice, a clearance opinion, or a prediction of any outcome.