“Bilindiği üzere, 5651 sayılı İnternet Ortamında Yapılan Yayınların Düzenlenmesi ve Bu Yayınlar Yoluyla İşlenen Suçlarla Mücadele Edilmesi Hakkında Kanunda belirtilen suçlar kapsamında verilen erişimin engellenmesi kararları, kararı veren hâkim, mahkeme veya Cumhuriyet Savcısı tarafından gereği yapılmak üzere Telekomünikasyon Kurumu Telekomünikasyon İletişim Başkanlığına gönderilmekte ve kararlar Telekomünikasyon İletişim Başkanlığınca yerine getirilmektedir.

Telekomünikasyon İletişim Başkanlığı”

ICANN’in yeni politikası ana kelime değil, isteğe göre yeni uzantı satmak şeklinde. Yani bu zamana kadar ICANN com, net, org, info gibi uzantıları belirlemiş, bundan sonra herkes istediği şekilde uzantısını alabilecek. .canon, .sony, .ibm, .apple gibi uzantılar veya .gol, .sen, gibi uzantılar alınabilecek.

Uzantıyı alacak firmanın ilk etapta 400 bin dolar ile 10 milyon dolar arasında bir harcamasının olacağı tahmin ediliyor. Bununla birlikte her sene ICANN’e 25 bin dolar ödeme yapacaklar. Bu zamana kadar çıkan com, net, org harici uzantıların tutmadığı düşünüldüğünde kendi uzantısını alacak firmalar haricinde bir yatırım olacağını düşünmüyoruz. Belki .web uzantısı popüler olabilir. Bunun dışında com, net, org’un tarih olduğu yok, yakın gelecekte de kimse bu uzantılara dokunamaz.

Daha sonra günün ilk sunumunu yapmak üzere ICANN İşbirliklerinden Sorumlu Başkan Yardımcısı Kurt Pritz kürsüye çıktı. Pritz, ICANN’in geldiği noktayı dönemler halinde anlattıktan sonra sektöre kazandırdıkları GTLD domainlerin tarihçesini dile getirdi. Günün asıl meselesi olan yeni GTLD programı için de süreci izah etmeye çalıştı. ICANN’in California yasalarına bağlı bir kurum olduğu yine Pritz tarafından ifade edildi.

Öğle arasından sonra Pritz’in açıklamalarını dinleyicilere daha sağlıklı bir şekilde sunmak için BTK Uzmanı Sayın Talat Güçlü söz aldı. Güçlü, sürecin oldukça karışık olduğunu, işe başlamadan önce kesinlikle iyi tahlil edilmesi gerektiğini söyledi. Başlangıç depozitosu olarak 5.000 dolar, akabinde başvuru için de 180.000 dolar yatırılacağını, vazgeçilmesi halinde bunun sadece 145.000 dolarının geri alınabileceğini belirtti. Yeni bir GTLD’nin ortalama masrafının asgari 400.000 dolar, azami 10 milyon doları bulabileceğini ifade etti. Bunun dışında yıllık 25.000 dolar da sabit ücret ödenmesinin mecburi olduğu, dolayısıyla riskin de beraberinde geldiğini hatırlattı.

Daha sonra söz alan DNS Çalışma Grubu Uygulamasında görevli TOBB Bilgi İşlem Şubesi Müdürü Sayın Mert Dayanır’da CCTLD statüsündeki Tr uzantılı domainler hakkında bilgi verdi. Yaklaşık 260 bin adet com.tr, gen.tr, web.tr, org.tr tarzı domain kaydedildiğini ifade eden Dayanır, uyuşmazlık halinde çözüm mekanizmasının DNS Çalışma Grubu olduğunu belirtti. Kendilerine gelen yaklaşık 1700 sorunu çözdüklerini anlatan Dayanır, uyuşmazlıklarda mail atılsa dahi inceleme yaptıklarını, dolayısıyla problemlerin çözümünde herhangi bir prosedür bulunmadığını dile getirdi. Kendileri haricinde yaklaşık 95 davanın da mahkemeler kanalıyla sonuçlandırıldığını, DNS Çalışma Grubu’nun verdiği karara itirazı olanlar için de mahkeme yolunun açık olduğunu söyledi. Dayanır, Daha önce TR uzantılı domain almak için bir sürü belge istendiğini, DNS Çalışma Grubu’nun 2008′de işe başladıktan sonra bu bürokrasinin yaşanmaması için evrak sayısında azaltma yaptıklarını, bazı domainlerin de rahatça alınabilmesinin önünü açtıklarını ifade etti. Örneğin, cicekci.com.tr tarzı bir domaini isteyen birisine vermenin, tüm çiçekçilerin hakkını korumak için daha önce mümkün olmadığını, ancak yeni süreçte bu tarz kayıtların serbest bırakıldığını anlattı. Bu tarz başvuruların ODTÜ tarafından kendilerine iletildiğini ve kendilerinin kararlarına göre işlem yapıldığını söyledi. Marka başvurusu yaptığı halde başvurusu çeşitli sebeplerle reddedilen, ancak com.tr domainlerinde iki yılı aşkın süre yayın yapan kişilerin de DNS Çalışma Grubu’nun takdir hakkını kullanması durumunda domainlerle yayına devam edebileceğinin altını çizdi.

İstanbul Patent Marka ve Danışmanlık Ltd. Şti’de avukat, WIPO’da hakem olarak çalışan Sayın Dilek Üstün Ekdial ise konuşmasında Evrensel Uyuşmazlık Çözüm Mekanizması hakkında bilgiler verdi. Ekdial, davanın, ya davalının yaşadığı yerde, ya da kayıt kuruluşunun bulunduğu yerde görülmesi gerektiğini, tek hakem için ortalama 1.500 dolar masrafının olduğunu, Türkiye’den yaklaşık 200 civarında davanın sonuçlandırıldığını ifade etti. 2010 yılında hizmete alınan e-UDRP sayesinde artık dava açmanın kolaylaştığını, bir davanın ortalama 45 günde sonuçlandığını, WIPO’da görülen davaların % 85′inin de şikayet eden lehine sonuçlandığını dile getirdi.

Son olarak söz alan BTK Uzmanı Sayın Sezen Yeşil de önümüzdeki yıllarda gelmesi planlanan .TR uzantılı alan adları hakkında açıklamalarda bulundu. Yeşil, com uzantısının 1 dakikada alınabildiğini, Tr uzantılarının biraz daha zahmetli olduğunu, dolayısıyla firmaların com, net gibi domainleri tercih ettiğini söyledi. Yeni dönemde bu sıkıntıları yaşamamak için TR uzantısında “İlk gelen alır” kuralını koyacaklarını, ancak marka sahiplerinin haklarını korumak için de belirli bir süre sadece marka sahiplerine tahsislerin yapılacağını ifade etti. BTK olarak kendilerinin taraf olmayacağını, uygulamanın TRABIS tarafından yürütüleceğini, domain kayıtlarının da firmalar aracılığıyla yapılacağının altını çizdi.

Program, dinleyicilerin konuşmacılara sorularıyla sona erdi.

DNHABER

Bilindiği üzere İnternet Alan Adları konusunda 5809 sayılı Elektronik Haberleşme Kanunu ile yetkilendirilen Ulaştırma Bakanlığı, yayınladığı yönetmelik ile Bilgi Teknolojileri ve İletişim Kurumu (BTK)’nu “.tr” uzantılı alan adlarında düzenleyici olarak görevlendirmiştir.

Ayrıca dünyada alan adları tahsisinden sorumlu olan Internet Tahsisli Sayılar ve İsimler Kurumu (ICANN – Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) alan adlarının uzantıları ile ilgili olarak Haziran ayı içerisinde yeni kararlar almış ve bunları dünya kamuoyuna açıklamıştır. Bu karar ile .com, .net gibi uzantılı alan adlarının yanında .istanbul, .shop gibi herhangi bir uzantı ile de alan adı tahsisi yapılabilmesinin önünü açmıştır.

Bu çerçevede, hem dünyada hem de ülkemizde alan adları konusunda yaşanan yeni değişiklik ve gelişmelerin kamuoyuna ve üyelerimize aktarılması amacı ile 19 Eylül 2011 Pazartesi saat 10:00 – 16:00 arasında Odamız 5. Kat Meclis salonunda “İnternet Yönetişimi: Dünya’da ve Türkiye’de Alan Adları” isimli ücretsiz bir seminer düzenlenilecektir.

İstanbul Ticaret Odası ile Bilgi Teknolojileri ve İletişim Kurumu (BTK) tarafından ortaklaşa düzenlenecek olan seminere kayıt için aşağıdaki başvuru formunu doldurarak (212) 455 48 59 nolu faksa ya da iletişim e-posta adreslerine en geç 16.09.2011 tarihine kadar iletilmesi gerekmektedir.

Programın Amacı: Dünyada ve ülkemizde alan adları konusunda yaşanan yeni değişiklik ve gelişmelerin Odamız üyelerine aktarılması.
Kapsamı:
* Alan Adlarında Yeni Yaklaşımlar; Yeni gTLD’ler
* Yeni gTLD’ler ve Türkiye Uygulamaları
* .tr uzantılı alan adlarında yeni düzenleyici çerçeve
* Evrensel Uyuşmazlık Çözüm Mekanizması (WIPO Uygulamaları)
Yöntemi: Seminer
Yeri: İTO Merkez Binası 5. Kat Meclis Salonu
Tarih / Saat: 19 Eylül 2011 / 10:00 – 16:00
Hedef Kitle: Alan adları’nda yaşanan gelişmeler hakkında bilgilenmek isteyen Üyelerimiz
Katılım: Ücretsizdir.

İşte davanın ingilizce olarak detayları:

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
SAHIBINDEN BILGI TEKNOLOJILERI PAZARLAMA VE TICARET ANONIM SIRKETI v. GKG.NET Domain Proxy Service, GKG.NET Domain Proxy Service Administrator/Halit, Halit KINCAL
Case No. D2011-0340
1. The Parties
The Complainant is SAHIBINDEN BILGI TEKNOLOJILERI PAZARLAMA VE TICARET ANONIM SIRKETI of Istanbul, Turkey, represented internally.

The Respondent is GKG.NET Domain Proxy Service, GKG.NET Domain Proxy Service Administrator/Halit, Halit KINCAL of Bryan, Texas, United States of America and Istanbul, Turkey, respectively.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with GKG.NET, INC (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on February 18, 2011. On February 18, 2011, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On February 19, 2011, 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 March 3, 2011, 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 amendment to the Complaint on March 9, 2011.

The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to the 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(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on March 10, 2011. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was March 30, 2011. The Response was filed with the Center on March 25, 2011.

The Center appointed Ugur G. Yalçiner as the sole panelist in this matter on April 8, 2011. 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 Turkish corporate entity, which runs a leading e-commerce web portal in Turkey since the year 2001. Its portal is a well-known online marketplace with more than 1 million registered users and nearly 500.000 daily visitors.

The Complainant states that it has a trademark registration for the mark SAHIBINDEN and for the mark SAHIBINDEN.COM in Turkey.

The Respondent, the registered owner of the disputed domain name , is a Turkish individual who is located in Istanbul, Turkey. The disputed domain name was registered on December 20, 2004.

5. Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
Identical or Confusingly Similar
With respect to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy and paragraph 3(b)(viii), (b)(ix)(1) of the Rules, the Complainant contends that:

The Complainant owns and runs an e-commerce web portal at the domain name since 2001 which offers people stored and free of charge listings to communicate with the prospective buyers of their goods and services to its 1 million registered and nearly 500.000 daily visitors.

The Complainant also asserts that the SAHIBINDEN trademark was first registered at the Turkish Patent Institute in the year 2000 and the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trademark SAHIBINDEN as the Internet terms “www” and “.com” are irrelevant distinctions which do not eliminate the possibility of confusion. The Complainant also alleges that the term “ilan” (Turkish word meaning “listing”) describes the Complainant’s main business area and it does not differentiate the disputed domain name from the Complainant‘s marks.

The likelihood of confusion includes an obvious association with the trademark of the Complainant and there is also a considerable risk that the public will perceive the disputed domain name as a domain name created by the Complainant under the SAHIBINDEN mark umbrella.

Rights or Legitimate Interests
With respect to paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy and paragraph 3(b)(ix)(2) of the Rules, the Complainant contends that:

The Respondent has not used the disputed domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. In addition, the Respondent is not known by the disputed domain name as it is not the Respondent’s name, corporate name or a commonly known identifier.

The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name was registered in December 2004 when the Complainant’s use of and rights to its trademark were well established.

The Complainant further contends that the Respondent has not made a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name; to the contrary, there are Google advertisements at the disputed website that direct Internet users to secondary webpages where the Respondent generates “pay-per-click” advertising revenue.

Registered and Used in Bad Faith
With respect to paragraph 4(a)(iii), 4(b) of the Policy and paragraph 3(b)(ix)(3) of the Rules, the Complainant contends that:

The website at the disputed domain name was created to provide listing like services by using a similar domain name to the SAHIBINDEN trademarks in the same field of business in which the Complainant has very good reputation.

The Respondent is intentionally attempting to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the website at the disputed domain name by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark.

B. Respondent
The Respondent contends that there is no likelihood of confusion between the Complainant’s trademarks and the disputed domain name, since “sahibinden” is a generic word and commonly used in many newspaper advertisements.

The Respondent adduces Annex 7 to the Response as evidence that there are many trademarks which are registered including the term “sahibinden” in the Turkish Patent Institute and that it is unthinkable that one company alone could monopolize the right to use all variations and combinations around this generic and common term.

Besides, the Respondent contends that the term “sahibinden” is also being presently used in various websites.

Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Respondent contends that the Respondent’s website presents free of charge activities and the website has some 1000 ads and over 4700 users.

The Respondent adduces Annex 6 to the Response as evidence that the Google income from the website is not enough to cover the production cost of single page.

Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Respondent contends that the website at the disputed domain name was found in 2004 and it has been actively used for seven years. Additionally, the Respondent indicates that he has no intention of selling or leasing the disputed domain name.

The Respondent asserts that the Complainant has registered its trademark for the first time in 2007, the trademark SAHIBINDEN in 2008 and the domain name in 2008 whereas the disputed domain name was registered well before in 2004.

The Respondent also denies the Complainant’s bad faith claims and assertions that there is no evidence to prove the Complainant’s bad faith claim.

6. Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that the 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 the Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;

(2) the 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.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The term “sahibinden” is a Turkish word that means “from the owner” (or “by owner”) in the English language. It is a descriptive term for selling goods by their owners. Nevertheless, the Complainant owns registered trademarks for the term “sahibinden”. So, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirement of having trademark rights regarding the term “sahibinden”.

The Panel finds that the insertion of the word “ilan” does not differentiate the disputed domain name from the Complainant’s mark SAHIBINDEN. The Panel concludes that the minor differences between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s mark are not sufficient to negate the confusing similarity for the purposes of the Policy.

According to the aforementioned considerations, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trademark SAHIBINDEN and therefore the Complainant has met the requirements of the first element under the Policy.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy sets out a number of circumstances which, without limitation, may be effective for a respondent to demonstrate that it has rights to, or legitimate interests in, a disputed domain name, for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. Those circumstances are:

(i) Before any notice to [the respondent] of the dispute, use by [the respondent] of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the disputed domain name or a name corresponding to the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or

(ii) Where [the respondent] (as an individual, business, or other organization) [has] been commonly known by the disputed domain name, even if [the respondent has] acquired no trade mark or service mark rights; or

(iii) Where [the respondent is] making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trade mark or service mark at issue.

The Panel notes that the Complainant has registered its domain name in 1999 and the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name in 2004.

The Complainant has stated that it has trademark registrations in respect of “sahibinden” since 2000. The Panel has conducted independent trademark research through the Turkish Patent Institution website for the trademarks including the word “sahibinden” and found the trademark applications (TR 2000/23233, TR 2000/23234, TR 2000/27710 and TR 2001/22892) which were filed by the company “Sahibinden Turizm Iletisim Pazarlama Ve Ticaret Limited Sirketi”. These four applications (TR 2000/23233, TR 2000/23234, TR 2000/27710 and TR 2001/22892) have been refused by Turkish Patent Institute on apparently absolute grounds in 2000 and 2001. The Panel notes that the name of the applicant of these 4 applications appears to be different from that of the Complainant. The Panel then performed a further search has been conducted at the Turkish Company Registry which indicates that the company name of “Sahibinden Turizm Iletisim Pazarlama Ve Ticaret Limited Sirketi” has been changed to the Complainant’s name “Sahibinden Bilgi Teknolojileri Pazarlama Ve Ticaret Anonim Sirketi” on May 10, 2006. As such, this Panel finds that the Complainant’s contentions regarding the registration year of the aforementioned trademark does not appear accurate. Based on the Panel’s determination on the current file and in light of the Panel’s assessment of the publicly accessible information, the Panel finds that the Complainant is indeed the owner of several word and figurative marks related to “sahibinden” but only since 2007.

(As regards the Respondent’s assertion that “sahibinden” is a term used by several third parties as trademarks, the Panel notes the trademark applications (TR 2009/34812, TR 2009/60292) which are evidenced by the Respondent in Annex 7 of the Response (as third-party trademarks which incorporate “sahibinden”), are not applications that have matured to a trademark registration. Those applications appear to have apparently been refused on absolute grounds by the Turkish Patent Institute.)

Viewing this situation in light of paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, and in the light of the above mentioned information, the Panel finds that;

The Complainant registered the domain name in 1999.

The Complainant (or Complainant’s predecessor-interest) attempted in the year 2000 and subsequently to register the word “sahibinden” as a trademark but all the above mentioned four applications have apparently been refused on absolute grounds.

The Respondent registered the disputed domain name in 2004.

The Complainant registered its SAHIBINDEN.COM trademark in 2007.

The Complainant did not take any action against the Respondent for 7 years (extensively leaving him to use the website at the disputed domain name starting from 2004 until the present proceedings).

This Panel finds that the Respondent has used the disputed domain name for the last 7 years in connection with a bona fide offering of services. During this period the Complainant would appear to have taken no action to prevent the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name. This situation demonstrates the Respondent’s rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

The Panel also notes that a later trademark registration does not necessarily mean an earlier registration of a corresponding domain name could not be considered to have been in good faith. See: Taner Aksoy v. Hasan Bozkurt, WIPO Case No. D2009-0101, Taner Aksoy v.Turisitk Tic. Ltd. Şti. WIPO Case No. D2010-0556, Sahibinden Bilgi Teknolojileri Pazarlama ve Ticaret Anonim Şirketi vs. Mehmet Bozkuş, WIPO Case No. D2010-0944, Sahibinden Bilgi Teknolojileri Pazarlama ve Ticaret Anonim Şirketi vs. NA NA, WIPO Case No. D2008-1819.

In all these cases the disputed domain names have been registered after the trademark registration of the complainant and the complainant has taken action in a reasonable time period after the registration of the disputed domain names.

However in the present case the disputed domain name was registered by the Respondent in 2004 well before the Complainant obtained a trademark registration for the term “sahibinden” in 2007 or 2008 and again well before the date of the present Complaint.

Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent has rights and legitimate interests to the disputed domain name.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
According to paragraph 4(a) (iii) of the Policy, in order to decide the Respondent’s bad faith in registration and use of the disputed domain name, the Complainant must prove one of the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation:

(i) circumstances indicating that the Respondent has registered or acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of the Respondent’s documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or

(ii) the Respondent has registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that the Respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or

(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 the Respondent’s web site or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent’s web site or location or of a product or service on the Respondent’s web site or location.

The Panel takes note that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trademarks. However, the Panel also takes note that the term “sahibinden” is not an inventive or coined word but also a descriptive term that means “by owner” or “from the owner” and has been widely used by many third parties in newspaper advertisements or as a banner on the window/balcony of the houses/cars. In other words, this term is being used by the owners of cars, houses and etc. who would like to rent or sell their properties/goods and the majority of owners whom do not belong to or are associated with the Complainant and its business. As such the term “sahibinden” may be used as a descriptive term (without reference to the Complainant’s trademarks).

The Panel also asserts that, it is important to consider that the Respondent has been actively using the disputed domain name since 2004 and the website has currently 5059 members. Additionally there is no proof in the record that the Respondent has had an intention of selling or leasing the disputed domain name.

Further, as stated in the above, the Panel found that the trademark applications filed by the Complainant in 2000 in respect of “SAHIBINDEN” were apparently refused by the Turkish Patent Institute.

As the Respondent is located in Turkey, the Panel is not convinced that the Respondent did not know of the Complainant’s business when registering the disputed domain name. It is also likely that the Complainant was aware of the Respondent’s disputed domain name as of 2004 because it is also located in Turkey. The Panel notes that the contents and design of the website of the disputed domain name and those of the website at the Complainant’s domain name are different from each other.

Therefore, taking into account the above considerations, the Panel does not find sufficient grounds to conclude, given the current record, the descriptive nature of the disputed domain name and the corresponding use by the Respondent, that the Respondent’s choice of the disputed domain name was most probably motivated by an intention to target the Complainant’s marks.

See, EMAP USA, Inc. v. Dick Jurgens d/b/a Mobile Dick’s Cycle Clinic, WIPO Case No. D2001-0311 (notice of the complaint filed by the complainant, even where the respondent knew of the complainant’s MOTORCYCLIST mark, was not enough to establish bad faith where there was no pattern of abusive registrations and the respondent had a legitimate reason for selecting the generic name);

Ultrafem Inc. v. Warren R. Royal, NAF Claim No. 97682 ( employs a commonly used word to which the complainant cannot claim exclusive rights; “the first to register a domain name containing a generic or descriptive mark should prevail absent bad faith and a lack of legitimate interest”);

Energy Source Inc. v. Your Energy Source, NAF Claim No 96364 (respondent entitled to use a domain name comprising generic or descriptive terms that was not exclusively associated with the complainant’s business).

In view of the above, the Panel is persuaded that Complainant has not satisfied its burden of proof as far as registration of the domain name in bad faith is concerned, noting also the Respondent has contested such allegations of bad faith registration and since it appears more likely than not that the Respondent indeed registered and used the disputed domain name in good faith.

7. Decision
For all the foregoing reasons, the Complaint is denied.

Ugur G. Yalçiner
Sole Panelist
Dated: April 22, 2011

ALAN ADI UZANTISINDA DEVRİM

2012′de bu sıkıntı tarihe gömülecek. Müjdeyi dünyadaki bütün alan adı uzantılarının düzenlemesinden sorumlu olan ICANN(İnternet Tahsisli Sayılar ve İsimler Kurumu) açıkladı. Kurum alan adı uzantılarının genişletileceğini artık .com, .org yahut .net ile sınırlı kalmayacağını duyurdu. Icann yeni isimler için başvuruları 12 Ocak 2012′den itibaren almaya başlayacak. Ücreti 185 bin dolar ve başvuru formu 360 sayfa uzunluğunda olacak.

FARKLI ALFABELERDE İSİM KOYABİLİRSİNİZ

Bu genişletme öyle böyle değil. Kurumlar yahut kişiler örneğin kategorilere göre (coğrafi, sanayi, tıp….) yahut Çince, Arapça, Gürcüce gibi farklı alfabeler kullanan alan adı uzantıları edinebilecek.

YENİ İNTERNET ÇAĞI

Guardian’a göre Icann yönetim kurulu başkanı Dengate Thrush bunun ‘yeni bir internet çağını başlatacağını’ duyurdu: “Gelecek neslin yaratıcılığı ve ilhamı için bir platform sağladık. Yeniliğin özgürce kendini ifade etmesine, bunu sınırlamak için iyi bir neden olmadığı müddetçe, izin verilmeli” dedi.

Bu yeni sistemde farklı dillerde ve alfabelerde uzantıların kullanılacak olması, karşımıza çok ilginç internet adresleri getirecek gibi. Tabi her yeni sistemde olduğu gibi bu yenilik de beraberinde bazı soru işaretleri getiriyor.

KARŞILAŞILACAK ZORLUKLAR

Hem tüketicilerin hem de şirketlerin zorluklar yaşaması muhtemel. Tüketici(kullanıcı) cephesinden bakıldığında mesela phishing denilen yani gerçek sitenin taklidi siteler ile kişi bilgilerini çalmayı hedefleyen hırsızlık sistemi yaygınlaşabilir en azından bu tip sahte sitelerin artması ve kullanıcıların bunların kurbanı olması riskini beraberinde getiriyor.

Şirketlerin ise site alan adı alırken karşılarına üç yol çıkacak ve stratejik açıdan bu yollardan hangisini seçmelerinin kendilerine avantaj sağlayacağına karar verecekler: Site adlarıyla ilgili bütün mevcut uzantıları almak, kendi alan adı uzantılarını yaratmak ve kendilerini az sayıda alan adı uzantısı ile sınırlandırmak.

Bu uygulamayla birlikte internet adresleri için yeni numara verme sisteminin internete doğrudan bağlanacak araçların sayısını da inanılmaz ölçüde arttıracağı söyleniyor.

.com uzantısının 26 yıl önce takdim edilmesinden bu yana internet alan adı uzantısı numara verme sistemindeki en büyük değişim olarak görülüyor bu adım.

İNTERNET KURULU BAŞKANI NE DEDİ?

Uluslararası İnternet Tahsisli Sayılar ve İsimler Kurumu ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers), tarihi bir karara imza atarak internetteki alan adları uzantılarını serbest bıraktı.

ICANN, Singapur’da düzenlenen toplantısında, bir çok değerli alan adlarının (generic Top-Level Domains – gTLDs) com, net. org gibi uzantılara hapis olduğu ve bunun gelişen internet dünyası için engel teşkil ettiği düşüncesiyle bu kararı aldı.

Alan adını kişinin hayal dünyasına bırakacak karar için başvurular 12 Ocak 2012 ile 12 Nisan 2012 tarihleri arasında yapılacak. ICANN, önümüzdeki yıl içerisinde söz konusu alan adlarının alınmasına imkan tanıyacak.

İnternet Kurulu Başkanı Serhat Özeren konuya ilişkin AA muhabirine yaptığı açıklamada, ”Karar uygulamaya geçtiğinde isteyen istediği uzantılı alan adını alabilecek. Örneğin istersem www.serhat.ozeren benim internet adresim olabilecek” dedi.

Serhat Özeren, ICANN’ın kar gütmeyen bir kuruluş olduğunu anımsatarak yine de bu işin maliyeti üzerinde dikkatli çalışılması ve yüksek fiyat istenmemesi gerektiğini kaydetti.

Özeren, ICANN’ın merkezinin ABD olduğunu ancak alacağı kararlarda uluslararası bir duruş sergilemesini gerektiğini belirterek, özellikle gelişmekte olan ülkelerin internet dünyasından daha çok faydalanabilmesine imkan sağlamasının önemine işaret etti.

ICANN, domainleri kendi çalışma şartlarını kabul eden dünya genelindeki akredite firmalar sayesinde kiralar. Bu kiralama 1 seneden 10 seneye kadar olabilir. Süresi dolan domainler için kullanıcının hiçbir hakkı kalmaz. Ancak ICANN, domainin süresinin bitiminden silinme tarihine kadar değişik periyotlar uygular. Bu periyotların ilk 40 günlük bölümünde domainin eski sahibinin uzatma imkanı bulunur. Bu süreçte fiyatlar domain firmalarının inisiyatifindedir. İsteyen firma kayıt ücretine uzatabilirken, dileyen firma da her geçen gün için ekstra ücret talep edebilir. Süresinin bitiminden itibaren 40 günü dolan domainlerİ backorder yöntemiyle almak mümkündür. Bu konuda yine domainin kayıtlı olduğu firmanın inisiyatifi sözkonusudur. Firmalar backordera müsaade edebilir veya etmeyebilir, bu hak ICANN tarafından kendilerine verilmiştir. ICANN’ın buradaki mantığı daha önce işletilen bir dükkanın boşaltılıp yeniden kiraya verilmesindense devredilerek işleyişin devamını sağlamaktır. Bu nedenle pre-release tipinde alınan domainlerin ilk kayıt tarihleri değişmez. Yine firmalar, backorder yöntemiyle olmadan da kendilerinde kayıtlı bulunan domainleri üçüncü şahıslara satabilirler. Burada ince nokta, domainin süresinin bitiminden itibaren 40 günün dolmasıdır. Hiçbir firma 40 günü dolmayan domaini başka bir kullanıcıya satamaz, backordera açamaz, ancak 40 gün dolduktan sonra takdir hakkını istediği gibi kullanabilir. Domainin süresini unutan kullanıcı, süre dolduğunda site yayında kalmadığı ve domain otomatikmen parka çekildiği için sahibi bunu farkedip tekrar yenileyebilir. ICANN bu süreç için 40 günü yeterli görür.

Domainini bu şekilde kaydetmeyi unutan ve başkası tarafından alınan adresler için eski sahibi iki seçeneği kullanabilir. Birincisi domainin yeni sahibi satmak isterse onunla anlaşabilir. İkincisi de Alan Adı Uyuşmazlıkları Yeknesak / Tekdüzen Kuralları (UDRP) kapsamında olayı yargıya taşımaktır. UDRP sistemine göre hak sahibi olduğunu iddia eden kişi veya  kurumlar ICANN tarafından  uluslararası alanda uyuşmazlık çözümü için görevlendirilmiş ve yetkilendirilmiş WIPO, CAC, NAF veya ADNDRC gibi uluslar arası kurul / kuruluşlardan herhangi birisine başvurarak: 1) Karşı tarafca  tescil ettirilmiş internet alan adının  kendisine ait bir marka, ticaret ünvanı, işletme adı, kişi adı vb bir hakkı içerdiğini, bu hak ile  karşı tarafca tescil ettirilen internet alan adının  aynı ya da benzer olduğunu, 2) Karşı tarafın bu internet alan adı ile herhangi bir yasal bağlantısının, hukuki yararının  bulunmadığını, 3) İnternet alan adının kötüniyetli olarak  tescil edildiğini ve / veya  kullanıldığını ispat etmek sureti ile söz konusu internet alan adının kendisine transfer edilmesini sağlama olanağı bulabilmektedir. Ancak bu süreç hem masraflı, hem de garantisi olmayan bir periyottur. UDRP prensipleri gereğince müracaat edildiği halde birçok önemli dava reddedilmiştir.

Doğan Medya’nın, ‘kanald.com’ adresinin kendisine verilmesi talebi Dünya Telif Hakları Örgütü (WIPO) tarafından reddedildi.

Kararın ayrıntısı:

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

DTV Haber Ve Görsel Yayıncılık Anonim Şirketi v. Para Bilgi Teknolojileri Reklam. Yayin. Dan. San. Tic. Ltd. Sti.

Case No. D2010-2109

1. The Parties

The Complainant is DTV Haber Ve Görsel Yayıncılık Anonim Şirketi of Istanbul, Turkey, represented by Dericioğlu & Yaşar Law Office, Turkey.

The Respondent is Para Bilgi Teknolojileri Reklam. Yayin. Dan. San. Tic. Ltd. Sti of Ankara, Turkey, represented by Z&K Hukuk Bürosu, Turkey.

2. The disputed domain name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <kanald.com> is registered with Alantron BLTD.

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on December 7, 2010. On December 8, 2010, the Center transmitted by email to Alantron BLTD a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name <kanald.com>. On December 14, 2010, Alantron BLTD transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant, providing the registrant’s contact details and advising that the language of the registration agreement of the disputed domain name is Turkish. The Center sent an email to the parties on December 16, 2010, concerning the language of the proceeding, communicating that the language of the registration agreement of the disputed domain name is Turkish. The Complainant addressed an email to the Center on December 20, 2010, requesting an extension of time to translate the Complaint from English to Turkish and the Center replied, on the same day, granting the Complainant an extension of seven days.

The Complainant transmitted by email a translated version of the Complaint on December 19, 2010.

The Center verified that the 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(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced December 28, 2010. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was January 17, 2011. The Response was filed with the Center, in English language, on January 17, 2011.

The Center appointed Luca Barbero, Dilek Ustun Ekdial and Thomas M. Legler as panelists in this matter on March 2, 2011. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. Each member of 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 Turkish company which belongs to the Dogan Yayin Holding A.S. and broadcasts the channel KANAL D television channel in Turkey.

Attached to the Complaint are certificates for the several trademarks containing the wording “kanal d”, such as:

Turkish trademark registration No. 203634 for KANAL D (word and device), registered on August 26, 1998, in classes 38, 41 and 42;

Turkish trademark registration No. 2006/39108 for KANAL D HIGH DEFINITION (word mark), registered on August 11, 2006 in classes 16, 38 and 41;

Turkish trademark registration No. 2006/39109 for KANAL D HD (word mark), registered on August 11, 2006 in classes 16, 38 and 41;

Turkish trademark registration No. 2007/01513 for KANAL D HOME VIDEO (word and device), registered on January 17, 2007 in classes 9, 16, 38, 41 and 42;

Community Trademark registration No. 5190467 for KANAL D (word and device), filed on July 11, 2006 and registered on June 12, 2007, in classes 38, 41 and 42.

The Complainant is also the owner the domain name <kanald.com.tr>, registered on October 8, 1996.

The disputed domain name <kanald.com> was registered on December 31, 1997.

5. Parties’ Contention

A. Complainant

The Complainant points out that its trademark KANAL D has reached a high level of recognition among consumers and states that it has a priority right on such mark based on its prior trademark and domain name registrations.

The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical to its mark KANAL D as it reproduces the mark in its entirety and states that the registration and use of the disputed domain name by the Respondent is apt to confuse users as to the source and affiliation of the Respondent’s web site and services. The Complainant underlines that the letter “d” in the Complainant’s mark is meant to refer to the Complainant’s Dogan Group.

As to the right or legitimate interest in respect of the disputed domain name, the Complainant states that the Respondent has no trademark rights or personal rights on the expression “kanal d” and that the Complainant is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. The Complainant contends that the Respondent has been exploiting the reputation of the Complainant’s mark KANAL D in order to attract Internet users to a dating site under the disputed domain name. Therefore, the Complainant concludes that the Respondent is not using the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services and that the Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name.

With reference to the circumstances evidencing bad faith, the Complainant states that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name with the purpose of gaining improper benefit from the reputation acquired by the Complainant over the years.

The Complainant has submitted records from <domaintools.com> highlighting that the disputed domain name was registered in the name of Nurullah Ciftci in 2003, in the name of Hasari Gida Tekstil Kirt. Giyim ve Tas. Tic. LTd.Sti in 2007 and was subsequently transferred to the Respondent in 2008.

The Complainant also states that the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name for a dating site, where also some pornographic photos have been published, is causing dilution of its trademark KANAL D.

As additional circumstances evidencing bad faith, the Complainant states that the Respondent registered 427 domain names and that most of them are redirected to sites under construction, suspended or offered for sale.

The Complainant concludes that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract Internet users to its site for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s well-known mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the Respondent’s site.

B. Respondent

The Respondent rebuts the Complainant’s contentions and explains that its company is a professional Internet provider which renders hosting and domain name registration services and develops Internet software projects.

The Respondent states that the disputed domain name was first registered in 1997 in the name of the founder of its company Nurullah Çiftçi and that its “friendship site” under the disputed domain name has become popular having reached a number of 8000 registered users.

The Respondent states that the Complainant cannot claim exclusive rights on the mark KANAL D since the Complainant does not own a word trademark for KANAL D. The Respondent also states that the Complainant’s mark KANAL D was applied for in 1998, after the registration of the disputed domain name, and within classes which do not interfere with the Respondent’s activity.

The Respondent rejects the Complainant’s statements as to the misleading use of the disputed domain name stating that no reference is made to the Complainant and to its mark on the web site corresponding to the disputed domain name, including its Terms of Service, since the wording “KanalD” on the Respondent’s site is written without the space between the words “Kanal” and “D”, and the letter “d” is in capital letter and in different color and font. The Respondent highlights that the generic term “kanal” stands for “channel” or “chat room” and the letter “d” is the abbreviation of the word “dostluk” (which means “friendship” in Turkish) and designates the Respondent’s friendship channel under the disputed domain name.

With reference to the right or legitimate interest in respect of the disputed domain name, the Respondent states that it has put great efforts and investments in incorporation process and to distinguish its domain name by making it known as a trademark. The Respondent underlines that the Complainant registered its trademarks in 1998, one year after the registration of the disputed domain name by the Complainant and that the Complaint should be denied since the Complainant has never claimed any right or made any warning for the disputed “domain name” for thirteen years. The Respondent highlights that the Complainant’s late filing of the Complaint is not in good faith and falls under “forfeiting of right due to prescription” according to general legal principles of the international law.

As to the Complainant’s assertions on the Respondent’s bad faith, the Respondent states that it registered and has been using the disputed domain name in good faith. The Respondent highlights that it has never contacted the Complainant to sell the domain name, that it conducts a different activity from the Complainant and that the Complainant is abusing UDRP by filing a UDRP complaint against the Respondent.

The Respondent reiterates that none of the web design, or the logo used, or the service rendered or the Terms of Services on the disputed domain name includes any expression, reference or word or trademark which may mislead the user by creating the assumption or information that the disputed domain name belongs to the Complainant. The Respondent also points out that it has never broadcasted advertisements or sponsored links on the site corresponding to the disputed domain name and has never charged its users for using the web site.

As to the contents of the web site under the disputed domain name, the Respondent underlines that it is a social networking web site based on IRC and web, that it provides a “group option” to search friends and that the pornographic or infringing contents or profiles highlighted by the Complainant have been promptly deleted by the site’s administrators as soon as they became aware of such infringements.

With reference to its activity, the Respondent clarifies that the Respondent’s company provides domain name registration and hosting services on the basis of a license issued by the Telecommunication Communication Presidency and states that some of the domain names mentioned by the Complainant and not redirected to active web sites were registered by the Respondent for its customers and were expired as the customers did not wish to provide for the renewal.

The Respondent concludes that all the Complainant’s claims are meritless and groundless and requests the dismissal of the Complaint.

6. Discussion and Findings

According to paragraph 15(a) of the Rules: “A Panel shall 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 directs that the Complainant must prove each of the following:

(i) that the disputed domain name registered by the Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or a service in which the Complainant has rights; and

(ii) that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and

(iii) that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

A. Preliminary issue: the language of the proceeding

According to paragraph 11(a) of the Rules, unless otherwise agreed by the Parties, or specified otherwise in the Registration Agreement, the language of the administrative proceeding shall be the language of the Registration Agreement, subject to the authority of the Panel to determine otherwise, having regard to the circumstances of the administrative proceeding.

In the case at hand, as mentioned in paragraph 3, the Complainant originally submitted the Complaint in English, requesting that English be the language of the proceeding. After the Center’s communication that the language of the Registration Agreement is, according to the Center’s verifications with the competent registrar, Turkish, the Complainant provided for the translation of the Complaint in Turkish and requested that Turkish be the language of the proceeding. Subsequently, the Respondent voluntarily replied in English language, accepting English as the language of the proceeding.

In light of the fact that both parties have shown that they can effectively communicate in English and considering that the Respondent has opted for English as language of the proceedings and so did the Complainant when the Complaint was first filed, the Panel determines that the language of the proceeding be English.

B. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Complainant has provided evidence of ownership of several trademark registrations constituted by the wording “kanal d” together with other letters and/or words or figurative elements.

The Panel has reviewed the trademark certificates attached to the Complaint and finds that the wording “kanal d” has to be considered as the most distinctive element of the Complainant’s trademarks and that, therefore, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.

See, along these lines, inter alia, Adaptive Molecular Technologies, Inc. v. Priscilla Woodward & Charles R. Thorton, d/b/a Machines & More, WIPO Case No. D2000-0006 (“While the domain ‘militec’ is not identical to Complainant’s MILITEC (& Design) and MILITEC-1 trademarks, as Complainant would have this panel believe (Amended Complaint, paragraph 13), it undoubtedly is confusingly similar, in that it is the primary, distinctive element of both of Complainant’s trademarks. Moreover, Respondent does not dispute Complainant’s trademark rights”) and Zwiesel Kristallglas AG v. WWW Enterprise Inc., WIPO Case No. D2005-1223, concerning the domain name <zwiesel.com>, (“The Panel accepts the Complainant’s allegations that the word ‘zwiesel’ is the essential element of the Complainant’s marks (‘ZWIESEL GLAS’ and ‘SCHOTT ZWIESEL’) and is universally recognized and relied upon as identifying the Complainant”).

In view of the above, the Panel finds that the Complainant has proven that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademarks in which the Complainant has rights in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.

C. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Panel finds that the issue of the rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name is, in the case at hand, strictly connected with the bad faith requirement and deems therefore appropriate to analyze such issue in the following paragraph.

D. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

For the purpose of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of the disputed domain name in bad faith:

(i) circumstances indicating that the holder has registered or has acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of the holder’s documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or

(ii) the holder has registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that the holder has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or

(iii) the holder has registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or

(iv) by using the domain name, the holder has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the holder’s website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the holder’s website or location or of a product or service on the holder’s website or location.

As mentioned in the paragraphs above, the most dated trademark certificate for KANAL D (word and device) submitted by the Complainant is the Turkish trademark registration No. 203634 of August 26,1998, after the registration of the disputed domain name by Nurullah Ciftçi, who appears to be the head of the Respondent’s business, on December 31, 1997. The Panel notes that the Complainant mentioned (in the paragraph concerning the legitimate interest of the Complaint) that it apparently filed a trademark application on July 10, 1996 but does not specify if such date could correspond to the filing date of the mentioned trademark No. 203634.

Be it as it may, even if it can be supposed that – also in light of the registration of the domain name <kanald.com.tr> on October 8, 1996 by the Complainant, for which it was presumably required to provide evidence of a trademark application -, the Complainant had registered trademark rights at the time of the registration of the domain name, the Panel finds that the Complainant has not submitted evidence showing that the Complainant’s mark was, at that time, widely known in Turkey or otherwise concretely known by the Respondent, acting thus in bad faith.

The Panel finds, in particular, that the Complainant has failed to prove that it had common law or other trademark rights on the mark KANAL D at the time of the registration of the disputed domain name. The Panel notes that the core of the Complainant’s trademark KANAL D., which is constituted by the generic term “kanal” and the letter “d”, is rather descriptive in Turkish and, in fact, these two generic terms have solely been admitted as trademark and design (logos) and not as mere word marks. Since the UDRP is a pleading only proceeding, the statements and evidence submitted by the parties must be as complete as possible. A proof of a fact, therefore, cannot be deemed satisfied by assertions or suppositions, but requires concrete evidence. Moreover, when a trademark is not inherently distinctive, there is an onus on the complainant to submit convincing evidence of secondary meaning and distinctiveness acquired through the extensive use of the mark.

In addition, the Panel finds that the Complainant has not provided convincing evidence of the Respondent’s bad faith use of the disputed domain name, while the Respondent has submitted evidence of prima facie good faith and legitimate use of <kanald.com> in connection with a chat service, indicating that the term “Kanal” was at those times regularly used for chat services.

The Panel also notes that no reference has been made to the Complainant on the Respondent’s site and that no other evidence of bad faith use of the disputed domain name has been submitted by the Complainant, e.g., evidence that the Respondent registered the domain to sell it to the Complainant or to divert or otherwise confuse users as to the source or approval of its site by the Complainant.

As to the “forfeiture of rights”, also called the doctrine of “laches”, cited by the Respondent, the Panel finds that, even if bringing a Complaint after 14 years from registration is surprising, in light of the Rules and the scope of the Policy, whose remedies are injunctive rather than compensatory in nature, and whose aim is avoiding confusion in the future as to the source of communications, goods, or services, the equitable defense of laches does not properly apply to this proceeding. See, along these lines, Mile, Inc. v. Michael Burg, WIPO Case No. D2010-2011, Charter Communications, Inc. v. CK Ventures Inc. / Charterbusiness.com, WIPO Case No. D2010-0228,The E.W. Scripps Company v. Sinologic Industries, Tom Cruise v. Network Operations Center / Alberta Hot Rods, WIPO Case No. D2006-0560.

In light of the above, based on the statements and documents submitted to the Panel in the present proceeding, the Panel finds that the Complainant has failed to prove that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

Conversely, the Panel deems that, in light of the particular circumstances of this case, the most appropriate venue to resolve the present dispute between the parties could be a proceeding under Turkish law before the competent Court in Turkey, where it may have a different outcome.

7. Decision

For all the foregoing reasons, the Complaint is denied.

Luca Barbero
Presiding Panelist

Dilek Ustun Ekdial
Panelist

Thomas M. Legler
Panelist

Dated: March 28, 2011

Satan şahıs ile msn de konuşurken özellikle 1 martta başlatmasını istemiştim. Anlaştık.

Ayın 17′sinde ödemem için mail geldi. Ben de onlara “hosting siparişimde özellikle hizmeti 1 mart 2011 tarihinde açmanızı, aylık ödemeleri ayın 1′inden 1′ine yapacağımı ve bu süre zarfında kullanacağımı belirtmiş idim. ilk ödemeyi ayın 23′ü veya 24′ünde de yaparken bu durumu msn’de ilgili kişiye belirtmiş idim. zaten 1 mart’dan önce de kullanamadım.

ödeme bilgilerini sistemden ayın 1′i olarak güncellerseniz sevinirim.” şeklinde bir cevap yazdım.

Onlardan ne bir haber, ne bir uyarı, ne de bilgi gelmedi.

Bugün bir mail aldım. Başlığı: Hesabınız Durdurulmuştur.

İçeriğinde ise “Kullanmakta olduğunuz 8 GB Limitsiz Cpanel Hediye ödeme sorunlarından dolayı durdurulmuştur. Lütfen aşağıdaki bilgiler ile panelinize giriş yaparak faturanızı ödeyiniz.” yazıyor.

Ve sitem şu anda çalışmıyor… Normalde ayın 1′ine kadar kullanmam gereken bir zamanım var. Süresi geldiğinde de yeni ayın bedelini ödeyeceğim.

Anlamadığım, 17. günde ödeme bilgisi gönderen firma, mailime rağmen neden bilgilerini güncellemiyor? Süresinden önce neden kapatıyor?

Hadi ben zamanını geçirmiş olsam kapatmadan önce neden kapanacağına dair bilgi vermiyor?

Yazık ki böyle baştan savma firmalar burada satış yapıyor…

Alıntıdır…
http://www.r10.net/hosting-sikayetleri/886043-domain-pozitif-sikayetim.html