AB Electrolux v. Ozkan USLU
Claim Number: FA1806001791037
Complainant is AB Electrolux ("Complainant"), represented by Cecilia Borgenstam of SILKA Law AB, Sweden. Respondent is Ozkan USLU ("Respondent"), Turkey.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <electrolux-teknik-servisi.com>, registered with Nics Telekomunikasyon A.S.
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.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on June 12, 2018; the Forum received payment on June 12, 2018.
On June 20, 2018, Nics Telekomunikasyon A.S. confirmed by email to the Forum that the <electrolux-teknik-servisi.com> domain name is registered with Nics Telekomunikasyon A.S. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Nics Telekomunikasyon A.S. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Nics Telekomunikasyon A.S. 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 June 25, 2018, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 16, 2018 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via email to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@electrolux-teknik-servisi.com. Also on June 25, 2018, 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.
Having received no response from Respondent, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On July 19, 2018, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed David E. Sorkin as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") "to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent" through submission of Electronic and Written Notices, as defined in Rule 1 and Rule 2. Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, the Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
The Panel notes that the Registration Agreement is written in Turkish. Rule 11(a) provides that the language of this administrative proceeding shall be the language of the Registration Agreement, subject to the authority of the Panel to determine otherwise.
The Complaint was submitted in English. The Forum invited Complainant to submit a copy of the Complaint translated into Turkish, or to amend the Complaint "to explain why Respondent is capable of understanding English and therefore, the proceedings should be conducted in English." Complainant elected to file an Amended Complaint, requesting that the proceeding be conducted in English on the following grounds:
The disputed domain name contains the trademark ELECTROLUX which is owned by the Complainant that is a Swedish entity whose second language and company language is English. The trademark also consists of latin character words and is a trademark that has a global reach. If the Respondent had only aimed at targeting a Turkish audience, a .com.tr ccTLD would have been more appropriate. Considering that Respondent is in the service business, it is highly unlikely that the Respondent is not at least familiar with the English language. Translating the Complaint would cause unnecessary delay in this matter and the Complainant would be unfairly disadvantaged by being forced to translate as the translation would raise high costs. The Respondent is of course invited to submit its response in Turkish if they so wish.
Amended Complaint at 3-4.
Under the circumstances presented here, the Panel does not believe it would be appropriate to conduct the proceedings in English. Complainant has not presented sufficient evidence to support an inference that Respondent is capable of understanding the English-language Complaint. Nor is the Panel aware of any such evidence. Respondent's website is in Turkish, appears to be aimed at an exclusively Turkish audience, and does not appear to contain or link to any English-language content (based upon both the limited screen captures provided by Complainant and the Panel's own more complete review of the website). The site does include a broken link to LinkedIn and the domain name registration data includes a Hotmail email address, but both LinkedIn and Hotmail are available in Turkish as well as English. The domain name was registered through a domain name registrar in Turkey (with a website in both Turkish and English), and as already noted, the Registration Agreement is in Turkish.
In addition, the Panel notes that Complainant operates a Turkish-language website at <electrolux.com.tr> that advertises its products and provides links to authorized dealers in Turkey. The Panel is therefore skeptical of Complainant's assertion that it would be unfairly disadvantaged by being forced to provide a Turkish translation of its Complaint.
The Panel therefore determines that the language of the proceedings should be Turkish, the language of the Registration Agreement. As Complainant has had an opportunity to submit a Turkish translation of the Complaint but declined to do so, the Panel considers it appropriate to dismiss the Complaint.
For the reasons set forth above, it is Ordered that the Complaint be dismissed without prejudice.
David E. Sorkin, Panelist
Dated: July 20, 2018
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page