Gloturkiye.com, Kentglo.com

The timeline behind gloturkiye.com

Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.

How each disputed name was decided in this proceeding.

Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.

ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION British American Tobacco (Brands) Limited v. Kerem Kerem Case No. D2026-1569 1. The Parties The Complainant is British American Tobacco (Brands) Limited, United Kingdom, represented by Com Laude Limited, United Kingdom. The Respondent is Kerem Kerem, Türkiye. 2. The Domain Names and Registrar The disputed domain names <gloturkiye.com> and <kentglo.com> are registered with Çizgi Telekomunikasyon A.Ş. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on April 14, 2026. On April 14, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On April 27, 2026, 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 (Domain Admin, Privacy Protect, LLC (PrivacyProtect.org)) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on April 27, 2026, 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 April 28, 2026. On April 28, 2026, the Center informed the parties in Turkish and English, that the language of the registration agreement for the disputed domain name is Turkish. On April 29, 2026, the Complainant confirmed its request that English be the language of the proceeding. The Respondent did not submit any comment on the Complainant’s submission. 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”). page 2 In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on April 30, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was May 20, 2026. The Respondent sent an email communication to the Center on April 28, 2026. The Center notified the Parties of commencement of Panel appointment process on May 21, 2026. The Center appointed Kaya Köklü as the sole panelist in this matter on May 28, 2026. 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 part of a group of companies internationally active in the field of selling tobacco and smoke-free products, with the Complainant being the intellectual property holding company of the company group. The Complainant owns a large number of GLO and KENT trademark registrations around the world. The Complainant is, among many others, the owner of the Turkish Trademark Registration No. 79240, registered on December 31, 1993, for KENT, covering protection for cigarettes as protected in class 34. The Complainant is further the owner of the Turkish Trademark Registration No. 2024 050949, registered on August 9, 2024, for GLO, covering protection for cigarettes and related goods as covered in class 34. The Respondent is reportedly located in Türkiye. The disputed domain name <gloturkiye.com> was registered on July 13, 2025. The disputed domain name <kentglo.com> was registered on May 24, 2025. Screenshots, as provided by the Complainant, show that both disputed domain names resolve to websites purportedly offering various kinds of smoke-free products of the Complainant’s group of companies. On the associated websites, the KENT and GLO trademarks and respective product illustrations are prominently used without a visible disclaimer, describing the (lack of) relationship between the Parties. Additionally, the website linked to the disputed domain name <gloturkiye.com> states in Turkish language that it is “Türkiye’s authorized sales store”. Furthermore, the Complainant has provided unrebutted evidence that the Respondent has configured a Mail Exchange (“MX”) server for the disputed domain names, which enables the Respondent to send and receive emails using the disputed domain names. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the disputed domain names. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. However, the Center received an informal email correspondence from the Respondent on April 28, 2026, stating in Turkish language: “I have sent you the domain name transfer code – take it. Do not disturb us again”. page 3 6. Discussion and Findings 6.1. Language of the Proceeding The language of the Registration Agreement for the disputed domain names is Turkish. Pursuant to the Rules, paragraph 11(a), in the absence of an agreement between the parties, or unless specified otherwise in the registration agreement, the language of the administrative proceeding shall be the language of the registration agreement. The Complaint was filed in English. The Complainant requested that the language of the proceeding be English for several reasons, including the fact that the Complainant has no knowledge of Turkish and that filing a translation of the Complaint would be time and costs intensive. The Respondent did not make any specific submissions with respect to the language of the proceeding, even though communicated by the Center in Turkish and English. In exercising its discretion to use a language other than that of the registration agreement, the Panel has to exercise such discretion judicially in the spirit of fairness and justice to both parties, taking into account all relevant circumstances of the case, including matters such as the parties’ ability to understand and use the proposed language, time and costs (WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Select UDRP Questions (“WIPO Overview 3.1”), section 4.5.1). Having considered all the matters above and bearing in mind that the Respondent has not objected the Complainant’s request concerning the language of the proceeding, the Panel determines under paragraph 11(a) of the Rules that the language of the proceeding shall be English. 6.2. Substantive Issues According to paragraph 15(a) of the Rules, the Panel shall decide the Complaint in accordance with the Policy, the Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable. In accordance with paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove that each of the three following elements is satisfied: (i) the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights; and (ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names; and (iii) the disputed domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith. As per paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the complainant bears the burden of proving that all these requirements are fulfilled, even if a respondent has not substantively replied to the complainant’s contentions. Stanworth Development Limited v. E Net Marketing Ltd., WIPO Case No. D2007-1228. Concerning the uncontested information provided by a complainant, the Panel may, where relevant, accept the provided reasonable factual allegations in a complaint as true. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 4.3. It is further noted that the Panel has taken note of the WIPO Overview 3.1 and, where appropriate, will decide consistently with the consensus views captured therein. page 4 A. Identical or Confusingly Similar It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. The standing (or threshold) test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.7. The Complainant has shown rights in respect of the KENT and GLO trademarks for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.2.1. The entirety of the KENT mark is reproduced within the disputed domain name <kentglo.com>. The entirety of the GLO mark is reproduced in both disputed domain names. Accordingly, the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the marks for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.7. Although the addition of other terms may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds the addition of the term “turkiye” within the disputed domain name <gloturkiye.com> does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between this disputed domain name and the GLO mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.8. The Panel finds the first element of the Policy has been established. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances in which the Respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name. Although the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, panels have recognized that proving that a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the difficult task of “proving a negative”, requiring information that is often primarily within the knowledge or control of the respondent. As such, where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name (although the burden of proof always remains on the complainant). If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.1. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. Particularly, the Complainant put forward that the Respondent is neither a business partner of the Complainant nor a licensee of its KENT and/or GLO trademarks and that the Respondent is not commonly known by the terms “glo turkiye” or “kent glo”. The Respondent has not rebutted the Complainant’s prima facie showing and has not come forward with any relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise. In this regard, the Panel also believes that the Respondent cannot be assessed as a legitimate dealer for the Complainant’s products in light of Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ASD, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2001-0903 (“Oki Data”) and thus is not entitled to use the disputed domain names accordingly. The criteria as set forth in Oki Data are not fulfilled in the present case. The Panel particularly notes that on the websites linked to the disputed domain names the Respondent do not accurately and prominently disclose the relationship, or rather the lack thereof, between the Respondent and the Complainant, thus creating the false impression that the Respondent might be an official and/or authorized reseller/distributor for the Complainant’s products. Quite the opposite, despite having no business relationship whatsoever with the Complainant or any of its affiliated companies, the Respondent falsely represents itself as an “authorized sales store”. In view of the Panel, all this takes the Respondent out of the Oki Data safe harbour for purposes of the second element. page 5 The Panel finds the second element of the Policy has been established. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel notes that, for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, paragraph 4(b) of the Policy establishes circumstances, in particular, but without limitation, that, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith. Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out a list of non-exhaustive circumstances that may indicate that a domain name was registered and used in bad faith, but other circumstances may be relevant in assessing whether a respondent’s registration and use of a domain name is in bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.2.1. In the present case, the Panel notes that the Respondent must have had the Complainant and its KENT and GLO trademarks in mind when registering the disputed domain names. It is obvious to the Panel that the Respondent has deliberately chosen the disputed domain names, which comprise the Complainant’s KENT and/or GLO trademarks in their entirety, to target the Complainant and mislead particularly Turkish speaking Internet users who are searching for the Complainant and its products. With respect to the use of the disputed domain names in bad faith, the Panel finds that the Respondent uses the disputed domain names in order to generate traffic to its own websites by deliberately misleading Internet users seeking the Complainant’s products in a false belief that the associated websites are either operated or at least authorized by the Complainant. The prominent use of the Complainant’s KENT and GLO marks and the nature of the disputed domain names are, in view of the Panel, sufficient evidence that the Respondent intentionally tries to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its websites by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant and its KENT respectively GLO trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the associated websites. This is further supported by the active MX server, which creates an ongoing threat to the Complainant, since the disputed domain names may be used by the Respondent to mislead customers in the false belief that any email, using the disputed domain names, comes from the Complainant. In addition, the Panel considers the Respondent's failure to submit a substantive response to the Complainant's contentions, together with its informal statement of April 28, 2026 that it had provided a transfer code for the transfer of the disputed domain names, as further evidence of the Respondent's bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain names. The Panel finds that the Complainant has established the third element of the Policy. 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 names <gloturkiye.com> and <kentglo.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /Kaya Köklü/ Kaya Köklü Sole Panelist Date: June 11, 2026

Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.