TURKEY
of our client’s trademarks and therefore that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to our client’s trademarks. Regarding the second and third UDRP criteria (rights or legitimate interests, registered and used in bad faith), the panel stated that even though our client has a trademark registration from 1996, the evidence does not prove that in 1997 our client’s ‘Kanal D’ trademark was widely known in Turkey.
T e panel also found that even if bringing a complaint aſt er 14 years of registration is surprising, in the light of the rules and the scope of the policy—the remedies of which are injunctive rather than compensatory in nature and the aim of which is avoiding confusion in the future as to the source of communications, goods or services—the equitable defence of the laches does not properly apply to this proceeding. Finally, the UDRP panel came to the conclusion that we had failed to prove that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith, and in the light of the particular circumstances of this case, the most appropriate venue to resolve the present dispute between the parties is under Turkish Law before the competent court in Turkey, where it may have a diff erent outcome.
Local court’s decision
In the light of the UDRP decision we fi led an infringement action before the Ankara Civil Court for Intellectual and Industrial Property Rights against the registrant and requested that the court determine that the acts of the defendant constitute infringement and unfair competition, and that it acted in bad faith during the registration. We also argued for cessation of this infringement, and for material, moral and reputation- based compensation.
Aſt er the UDRP decision, the registrant of the domain name www.kanald. com fi led a trademark application for ‘
kanald.com’ trademark in class 45 for ‘marriage services’. T e related application was rejected by the TPI in accordance with our opposition. T e TPI accepted our opposition stating that considering the level of recognition of our client’s previously registered
www.worldipreview.com
IN OUR CASE, THE DOMESTIC COURT EXAMINED THE CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE IN MORE DETAIL, WITH THE ADVANTAGE OF BEING FAMILIAR WITH THE HABITS AND CHOICES OF TURKISH CONSUMERS.
‘Kanal D’ trademarks, the related application causes confusion among consumers, as the ‘
kanald.com’ trademark application is the same as our client’s ‘Kanal D’ trademarks.
Our main claim in this infringement case is that the infringement is still continuing and given the registration date (1997) of the domain name and our client’s trademark, the concept of the website gives the impression to Internet users that it belongs to our client. However, the defendant
World Intellectual Property Review e-Digest 2013 109
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119