MySQL AB v. Aydin Gaziulusoy et al.

NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM
URS FINAL DETERMINATION

MySQL AB v. Aydin Gaziulusoy et al.
Claim Number: FA1501001600005

DOMAIN NAME

<mysql.training>

PARTIES

	Complainant: MySQL AB of Uppsala, Sweden
	Complainant Representative: Steven M. Levy of Philadelphia, PA, United States of America

	Respondent: Aydin Gaziulusoy of Istanbul, Turkey

REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS

	Registries: Wild Willow, LLC
	Registrars: Godaddy LLC

EXAMINER

	The undersigned certifies that he or she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his or her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Examiner in this proceeding.
	Ahmet Akguloglu, as Examiner

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

	Complainant Submitted: January 15, 2015
	Commencement: January 16, 2015
	Response Date: January 30, 2015
	Having reviewed the communications records, the Examiner finds that the National Arbitration Forum has discharged its responsibility under URS Procedure Paragraphs 3 and 4 and Rule 4 of the Rules for the Uniform Rapid Suspension System (the "Rules").

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the domain name be suspended for the life of the registration.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Clear and convincing evidence.

FINDINGS and DISCUSSION

	Procedural Findings:
		Multiple Complainants: The Complaint does not allege multiple Complainants
		Multiple Respondents: The Complaint does not allege multiple Respondents

Findings of Fact: The Complainant claimed that MySQL product, an open-source relational database management system, is used behind the scenes in a wide range of internet website applications on such sites as Google, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube etc. The Complainant also asserted that they provide a variety of related MySQL services including training and developer certification for developers, programmers and website designers. The Complainant also claimed that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to their distinctive and globally famous MySQL trademark. The Complainant also asserted that the Respondent has no legitimate right or interest on the domain name and the domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Respondent replied that; as a registrant, his aim is to use the website as a non-commercial educational site. He stated that his main goal for registration is to share students’ knowledge and experience on the MySQL. He defended that he has no commercial gain and/or bad faith with regard to the domain name registration.

URS Procedure 1.2.6, requires Complainant to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be suspended.

[URS 1.2.6.1] The registered domain name(s) is/are identical or confusingly similar to a word mark:
  (i) for which the Complainant holds a valid national or regional registration and that is in current use; or
  (ii) that has been validated through court proceedings; or
  (iii) that is specifically protected by a statute or treaty in effect at the time the URS complaint is filed.

Determined: Finding for Complainant

It is clear that the Complainant has met its burden by clear and convincing evidence that the domain name is identical to the word mark “MySQL” for which the Complainant holds valid national and international registrations which are in current use.

[URS 1.2.6.2] Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name.

Determined: Finding for Complainant

The Complainant did not authorize the Respondent for use of the “MySQL” trademark. The Respondent did not submit any evidence to the contrary that it has legitimate interest for usage of the “MySQL” trademark. Therefore, it is understood that the Respondent does not have any right or legitimate interest over the disputed domain name.

[URS 1.2.6.3] The domain name(s) was/were registered and is being used in bad faith.
  a. Registrant 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 documented out-of pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or
  b. Registrant has registered the domain name in order to prevent the trademark holder or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that Registrant has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or
  c. Registrant registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
  d. By using the domain name Registrant has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain, Internet users to Registrant’s web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Registrant’s web site or location or of a product or service on that web site or location.

Determined: Finding for Complainant

According to the Respondent’s statements the Respondent was clearly well aware of the Complainant and of its rights on the trademark when it registered the domain name. Referring to Exhibit-C submitted by the Complainant, it is understood that the disputed domain name redirects the visitors to other commercial pages like www.virginmobileusa.com, www.stupidope.com. In this respect, the Examiner concludes that, the Respondent intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain by registering and using the domain name. The Examiner finds that the disputed domain name was registered and it being used in bad faith in the sense of 1.2.6.3(d) of the URS.

FINDING OF ABUSE or MATERIAL FALSEHOOD

The Examiner may find that the Complaint was brought in an abuse of this proceeding or that it contained material falsehoods.

The Examiner finds as follows:

The Complaint was neither abusive nor contained material falsehoods.

DETERMINATION

After reviewing the parties’ submissions, the Examiner determines that the Complainant has demonstrated all three elements of the URS by a standard of clear and convincing evidence; the Examiner hereby Orders the following domain name(s) be SUSPENDED for the duration of the registration:

mysql.training

Ahmet Akguloglu
Examiner
Dated: February 4, 2015

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page