DECISION

 

PayU Payments Private Limited v. Eray Ozdemir / COBAN CESME MAHALLESI KUYUMCU SOKAK ER APARTMANI NO 4 DAIRE 8

Claim Number: FA2510002180294

 

PARTIES

Complainant is PayU Payments Private Limited ("Complainant"), represented by Robert White of Lexsynergy Limited, United Kingdom. Respondent is Eray Ozdemir / COBAN CESME MAHALLESI KUYUMCU SOKAK ER APARTMANI NO 4 DAIRE 8 ("Respondent"), Turkey.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <thepayu.com>, registered with Nics Telekomunikasyon A.S.

 

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.

 

Debrett G. Lyons as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on October 2, 2025; Forum received payment on October 2, 2025.

 

On October 6, 2025, Nics Telekomunikasyon A.S. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <thepayu.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 October 6, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Turkish and English Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of October 27, 2025 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@thepayu.com. Also on October 6, 2025, the Turkish and English Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the e-mail 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, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default in Turkish and English.

 

On October 28, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Debrett G. Lyons as Panelist.

 

Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that 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, Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PRELIMINARY ISSUE: LANGUAGE OF PROCEEDING

According to the Registrar, the registration agreement for the domain name is written in Turkish.  Rule 11(a) provides that the language of the proceedings is the language of the registration agreement, subject to the authority of the Panel to determine otherwise, having regard to the circumstances of the case.  

 

Rule 10 provides:

 

General Powers of the Panel

(a) The Panel shall conduct the administrative proceeding in such manner as it considers appropriate in accordance with the Policy and these Rules.

(b) In all cases, the Panel shall ensure that the Parties are treated with equality and that each Party is given a fair opportunity to present its case.

(c) The Panel shall ensure that the administrative proceeding takes place with due expedition. It may, at the request of a Party or on its own motion, extend, in exceptional cases, a period of time fixed by these Rules or by the Panel.

(d) The Panel shall determine the admissibility, relevance, materiality and weight of the evidence.

 

Complainant filed the Complaint in English and has petitioned the Panel to adopt English as the language of the proceeding. It submits that Respondent can understand and communicate in English because the resolving website is entirely in English.

 

The Panel finds that procedural fairness favours Complainant. The Panel accepts the submission that Respondent can read and understand English. There has been no communication from Respondent objecting that it could not understand the Complaint. There has been no Response at all. As discussed hereunder, Respondent appears to have no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name and there is a compelling argument that the domain name was registered in bad faith and then used in bad faith. The Panel finds that it is appropriate for these proceedings to continue in the English language to expedite the Decision.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant asserts trademark rights in PAYU and submits that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark.

 

Complainant alleges that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

 

Further, Complainant alleges that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

The factual findings pertinent to the Decision in this case are that:

1.       Complainant uses the trademark PAYU in connection with its business providing online payment services;

2.       the trademark, PAYU, is registered in the name of Complainant with the European Union Trademarks Office ("EUIPO") as Reg. No. 10,521,128 from 22 December 2011;

3.       the disputed domain name was registered on November 9, 2024        by Respondent using a privacy service to shield its identity; and

4.       the disputed domain name has been used in a manner, later described, to encourage its acquisition by Complainant.

 

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.

 

In view of Respondent's failure to submit a response, the Panel shall decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant's undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(f), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and draw such inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules.  

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires a two-fold enquiry—a threshold investigation into whether a complainant has rights in a trademark, followed by an assessment of whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to that trademark.

 

Paragraph 4(a)(i) does not distinguish between registered and unregistered trademark rights (see, for example, Microsoft Corporation v. Story Remix / Inofficial, FA 1734934 (Forum July 10, 2017). Complainant asserts both registered and unregistered trademark rights. There is inadequate proof of unregistered rights accompanying the Complaint. However, a trademark registered with a national authority is evidence of trademark rights (see, for example, Mothers Against Drunk Driving v. phix, FA 174052 (Forum Sept. 25, 2003)) and Complainant has provided evidence of registration of PAYU with the EUIPO, a pan-national trademark authority. The Panel accordingly finds that Complainant has trademark rights.

 

For the purposes of comparison of the domain name with the trademark, the gTLD, ".com.", can be disregarded (see, for example, Rollerblade, Inc. v. McCrady, D2000-0429 (WIPO June 25, 2000) finding that the top level of the domain name such as ".net" or ".com" does not affect the domain name for the purpose of determining whether it is identical or confusingly similar). Otherwise, the domain name simply adds the definite article, "the", to the trademark, an addition of no distinctive value. The Panel finds that the domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark (see, for example, Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) ("Where a relevant trademark is recognizable within a disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element.")).

 

The Panel therefore finds that the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy are satisfied.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy states that any of the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be proved based on its evaluation of all evidence presented, shall demonstrate rights or legitimate interests to a domain name for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy:

 

(i)                      before any notice to you of the dispute, your use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or

 

(ii)                      you (as an individual, business, or other organization) have been commonly known by the domain name, even if you have acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or

 

(iii)                      you are making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.

 

Complainant need only make out a prima facie case that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, after which the onus shifts to Respondent to rebut that case by demonstrating those rights or interests (see, for example, Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, D2000‑0624 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000)).

 

There is no evidence that Respondent has any trademark rights of its own. The name of the domain name owner as disclosed by the Registrar does not carry any suggestion that Respondent might be commonly known by the domain name. The Complainant states that: 

 

"[t]he use that the Respondent has made of the Domain Name to point to a quasi-blog website is simply a pretext to force the Complainant to enter into commercial negotiations with the Respondent for the transfer of the Domain Name. … The Domain Name was registered for the underlying purpose for which it was being used, namely to commercially benefit from consumer confusion and to use the quasi-blog website at the Domain Name as a way to blackmail the Complainant to enter into commercial negotiations with the Respondent for the transfer of the Domain Name."

 

The Panel observes statements on the blog which are clearly intended to cause concern to Complainant and encourage it – implicitly if not explicitly – to purchase the domain name from Respondent in order to limit possible adverse outcomes. Such action clearly does not amount to a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate non-commercial or fair use under the Policy (see, for example, Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation v. Diego Ossa, FA 1602016 (Forum Feb. 26, 2015) finding that the respondent's underlying purpose to sell the disputed domain name was evidence that it lacked rights or legitimate interests).

 

A prima facie case has been made and so the onus shifts to Respondent to rebut that case by demonstrating those rights or interests.  Absent a Response, the onus is not met and so the Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied the second limb of the Policy.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Complainant must prove on the balance of probabilities both that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith and used in bad faith.  

 

Further guidance on that requirement is found in paragraph 4(b) of the Policy, which sets out four circumstances, any one of which is taken to be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith if established. 

 

The four specified circumstances are:

 

(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 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, respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, internet users to respondent's website 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 the respondent's website or location or of a product or service on the site or location.

 

The Panel finds that Respondent's conduct falls under paragraph 4(b)(i) above. The Panel finds compelling evidence that Respondent registered the disputed domain name primarily for the purpose of selling it to Complainant for consideration in excess of Respondent's acquisition costs. The Panel thus finds that Complainant has satisfied the third and final element of the Policy.  

 

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 <thepayu.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Debrett G Lyons, Panelist

Dated: October 29, 2025