Cam-sermaden.com + 15 more domains

The timeline behind cam-sermaden.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.

NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM DECISION Turkiye Sise ve Cam Fabrikalari A.S. v. Kemal Akgun Claim Number: FA1010001352920 PARTIES Complainant is Turkiye Sise ve Cam Fabrikalari A.S. (“Complainant”), represented by Banu Kuru, Turkey. Respondent is Kemal Akgun (“Respondent”), Turkey. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES The domain names at issue are <cam-sermaden.com>, <camambalaj.com>, <camelyaf.com>, <camisambalaj.com>, <camismaden.com>, <crystalounge.com>, <denizlicam.com>, <omcoistanbul.com>, <oxyvit.com>, <pasabahce.com>, <ruscam.com>, <sintankimya.com>, <sisecam.com>, <sodakrom.com>, <trakyaotocam.com>, and <camsermaden.com>, registered with NETWORK SOLUTIONS, LLC. PANEL 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. David E. Sorkin as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on October 19, 2010; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on October 19, 2010. On October 19, 2010, NETWORK SOLUTIONS, LLC. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <cam-sermaden.com>, <camambalaj.com>, <camelyaf.com>, <camisambalaj.com>, <camismaden.com>, <crystalounge.com>, <denizlicam.com>, <omcoistanbul.com>, <oxyvit.com>, <pasabahce.com>, <ruscam.com>, <sintankimya.com>, <sisecam.com>, <sodakrom.com>, <trakyaotocam.com>, and <camsermaden.com> domain names are registered with NETWORK SOLUTIONS, LLC. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. NETWORK SOLUTIONS, LLC. has verified that Respondent is bound by the NETWORK SOLUTIONS, LLC. 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 October 28, 2010, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of November 17, 2010 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@cam-sermaden.com, postmaster@camambalaj.com, postmaster@camelyaf.com, postmaster@camisambalaj.com, postmaster@camismaden.com, postmaster@crystalounge.com, postmaster@denizlicam.com, postmaster@omcoistanbul.com, postmaster@oxyvit.com, postmaster@pasabahce.com, postmaster@ruscam.com, postmaster@sintankimya.com, postmaster@sisecam.com, postmaster@sodakrom.com, postmaster@trakyaotocam.com, and postmaster@camsermaden.com. Also on October 28, 2010, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the email 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. Respondent did not submit a Response. Correspondence styled “Response” submitted on behalf of Mehmet Cakir, an employee of Complainant who previously had reported to Respondent, was received on November 18, 2010. This correspondence apparently was submitted because Mehmet Cakir is listed as an administrative contact for one of the disputed domain names. On November 29, 2010, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed David E. Sorkin as Panelist. RELIEF SOUGHT Complainant requests that the domain names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS A. Complainant Complainant is an international holding company with subsidiaries worldwide. Complainant claims trademark rights in a variety of marks registered in Turkey and elsewhere, including marks that match the disputed domain names. Complainant alleges that Respondent was employed by Complainant as its information technology manager until June 30, 2010. Complainant further alleges that it was the registrant of the disputed domain names until approximately December 2009, during an internal investigation of Respondent, at which time Respondent changed the account holder information and password for the domain names (although retaining Complainant’s physical address in the registration records). Complainant asserts that Respondent undertook this action illegally and in bad faith, apparently in order to obtain leverage against the risk that he would be dismissed as a result of the investigation. Complainant submitted copies of its employment contract with Respondent and the termination notice, along with other documentation, in support of its contentions. B. Respondent As noted above, Respondent did not submit a Response in this proceeding. The correspondence from Complainant’s employee styled “Response” merely corroborates some of the allegations in the Complaint. FINDINGS The Panel finds that the disputed domain names <cam-sermaden.com>, <camambalaj.com>, <camelyaf.com>, <camisambalaj.com>, <camismaden.com>, <crystalounge.com>, <denizlicam.com>, <omcoistanbul.com>, <oxyvit.com>, <pasabahce.com>, <ruscam.com>, <sintankimya.com>, <sisecam.com>, <sodakrom.com>, <trakyaotocam.com>, and <camsermaden.com> are identical or confusingly similar to marks in which Complainant has rights, that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names, and that the disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith. DISCUSSION 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. Identical and/or Confusingly Similar Complainant contends that the disputed domain names correspond to its registered trademarks, and Respondent has not challenged this claim. Having reviewed the evidence submitted by Complainant, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to marks in which Complainant has rights. Rights or Legitimate Interests Complainant contends that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names, on the basis that he acquired them illegally by transferring them from Complainant’s name into his own name in order to obtain leverage against Complainant in an employment dispute. Respondent has not challenged this claim. The Panel considers Complainant’s allegations and supporting evidence sufficient to make out a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names. The burden of production therefore shifts to Respondent to come forward with concrete evidence of his rights or legitimate interests. See, e.g., Shahrad Yazdani v. Domain Deluxe, FA1219173 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 2, 2008). In the absence of such evidence, the Panel finds that Complainant has met its burden of proof on this issue. Registration and Use in Bad Faith Complainant’s contentions and evidence relating to registration and use in bad faith are similarly sufficient and unchallenged within this proceeding. The Panel therefore finds that Complainant has met its burden of proof as to the bad faith issue. DECISION Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED. Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <cam-sermaden.com>, <camambalaj.com>, <camelyaf.com>, <camisambalaj.com>, <camismaden.com>, <crystalounge.com>, <denizlicam.com>, <omcoistanbul.com>, <oxyvit.com>, <pasabahce.com>, <ruscam.com>, <sintankimya.com>, <sisecam.com>, <sodakrom.com>, <trakyaotocam.com>, and <camsermaden.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. David E. Sorkin, Panelist Dated: December 2, 2010 Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page. Click Here to return to our Home Page

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