WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Sonorous Ses Ve Goruntu Sistemleri Sanayi Ticaret Anonim Sirketi v. Oguzhan Aksu, Sonorous Audiovisual Furniture GmbH Case No. D2018-2070 1. The Parties

The Complainant is Sonorous Ses Ve Goruntu Sistemleri Sanayi Ticaret Anonim Sirketi of Istanbul, Turkey, represented by Cagirgan Law Firm & IP Services Ltd., Turkey.

The Respondent is Oguzhan Aksu, Sonorous Audiovisual Furniture GmbH of Elmshorn, Germany, self‑represented. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name is registered with GoD, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on September 10, 2018. On September 10, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On October 1, 2018, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details.

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 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on October 3, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was October 23, 2018. The Response was filed with the Center in German on October 23, 2018.

The Center appointed Kaya Köklü as the sole panelist in this matter on October 29, 2018. 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.

On October 31, 2018, the Complainant filed a supplementary submission with the Center. In response to the Complainant’s additional filing, the Respondent filed a supplementary submission on November 5, 2018. The Center acknowledged receipt of the supplemental filings from both parties, and forwarded them to the Panel for its consideration. 4. Factual Background

The Complainant is a company with its registered seat in Turkey and since 2004 has been active in the field of manufacturing furniture for audiovisual equipment.

The Complainant owns various word and figurative SONOROUS trademark registrations around the world. According to the provided documents in the case file, the Complainant is, inter alia, the registered owner of the Turkish Trademark Registration No. 2004 06016 (registered on March 10, 2004) and International Trademark Registrations No. 852823 (registered on May 5, 2005) claiming protection for a large number of jurisdictions, including for Germany, where the Respondent is located.

The Respondent is a company from Germany, founded in 2007. According to Annex D and E as provided by the Respondent, the mere object of the Company was “trading with TV boxes and accessories manufactured by the company Sonorous, Turkey”, which means that the Respondent’s mere corporate dedication was to trade with the products of the Complainant. In line with this business purpose, the Respondent was active as an authorized distributor for the Complainant’s products in Germany for more than 10 years. For unknown reasons, however, business had become dissatisfactory for both sides for some time.

On June 4, 2018, the Respondent’s corporate purpose as published in the German commercial register has been extended to additionally “trade with further products not requiring permission” (cf. Annex F as provided by the Respondent).

The disputed domain name was initially registered on August 20, 2002 by a third party. It was acquired by the Complainant in 2006 (cf. Annex 1 as provided by the Complainant) and someday in 2008 (for unknown reasons) registered in the name of the Respondent. Even though the Respondent was named as the registrant of the disputed domain name, the Complainant’s managing partner was entered in the domain name register as the responsible administrative contact.

It is also undisputed that the website linked to the disputed domain name was created, operated and maintained as the main company website by the Complainant since 2006. This includes the use of respective email accounts for the Complainant’s management and employees. The costs for operating and maintaining the disputed domain name were directly paid by the Complainant to the concerned Registrar.

As can be seen in Annex B as provided by the Respondent, the first and main contact address on the website linked to the disputed domain name was the address of the Complainant in Turkey, literally described as the “Head Office”.

On June 19, 2018, hence only a few days after changing its corporate purpose in the commercial register (cf. Annex F as provided by the Respondent), the Respondent also changed the details of the administrative contact of the disputed domain name. By doing so, the Complainant was no longer able to use the disputed domain name and the respective email addresses of its management and employees. The Respondent did not inform the Complainant about the change of the administrative contact in advance.

At the time of the decision, the disputed domain name was not in active use. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant

The Complainant requests the transfer of the disputed domain name.

The Complainant is of the opinion that the disputed domain name is identical to its SONOROUS trademark.

Furthermore, the Complainant argues that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. It is particularly argued that the Respondent cannot benefit from the Oki Data principles established in Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ASD, Inc.,WIPO Case No. D2001-0903, although the Respondent is a reseller of the Complainant.

Finally, it is argued that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith by changing the administrative contact details of the disputed domain name and excluding the Complainant from using the disputed domain name. B. Respondent

The Respondent requests the denial of the Complaint.

It argues that the Complainant has no relevant trademark rights that would prevail its own company name rights.

Furthermore, the Respondent argues that it has rights and legitimate interests in using the disputed domain name.

Finally, it is also argued that the domain name has not been registered and used in bad faith. In this respect, the Respondent particularly argues that the disputed domain name registration on behalf of the Respondent was made with the explicit consent of the Complainant. It is further argued that there has been no bad faith use of the disputed domain name. The Respondent is rather of the opinion that it is entitled to use the disputed domain name to the exclusion of the Complainant. 6. Discussion and Findings 6.1. Language of the Proceeding

The language of the registration agreement of the disputed domain name is the English language. The Respondent alleged not to be able to submit its arguments in English language and, hence, requested to carry on the proceedings rather in German language. This, however, was opposed by the Complainant.

As the Parties did not agree on carrying on the proceedings in a different language than the language of the registration agreement, the Panel sees no sufficient justification to depart from English as the language of the current proceedings.

The Panel, however, notes that the Respondent was extraordinarily given the opportunity to render its submissions in German language. The Respondent made use of the opportunity.

In light of the above, the Panel determines in accordance with the Rules, paragraph 11(a), that the language of these administrative proceedings shall be the English language. 6.2. Consideration of Supplemental Filings

The Panel notes that the Center received supplemental filings from both the Respondent and the Complainant.

Paragr