WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Yildiz Holding Anonim Sirketi v. Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC / Shashank Srivastava Case No. D2019-0565 1. The Parties

The Complainant is Yildiz Holding Anonim Sirketi of Istanbul, Turkey, internally represented.

The Respondent is Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC of Scottsdale, Arizona, United States of America / Shashank Srivastava of Bahraich, India, 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 March 14, 2019. On March 15, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On March 15, 2019, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on March 22, 2019, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on March 25, 2019. Following a further request by the Center in light of information provided by the Registrar, the Complainant submitted a second amended Complaint on March 26, 2019. On March 27, 2019, the Complainant submitted a further amendment to the Complaint following a request for clarification.

The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended Complaints and the amendments (hereinafter referred altogether as 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 March 29, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was April 18, 2019. The Center received numerous emails from the Respondent in the period between March 22, and May 7, 2019. In light of the numerous emails submitted by the Respondent prior to April 18, 2019, the Center notified the Parties of the Commencement of Panel Appointment Process on April 23, 2019.

The Center appointed Warwick A. Rothnie as the sole panelist in this matter on May 7, 2019. 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 May 22, 2019, the Center received an email from a gmail account in the name of “ulker group”. 4. Factual Background

The Complainant is based in Turkey where it manufactures a range of candies, biscuits or other confectionery under a number of brands, the main one of which is ULKER.

The Complainant has numerous registrations in a number of countries around the world for the trademark ULKER. Amongst others, these include Turkish Registered Trademark No. 105547 for ULKER (stylized). This trademark has been entered in the Turkish Patent Institute’s List of Well-known Trademarks since 1996.

According to the Registrar, the Respondent registered the disputed domain name on July 14, 2018.

The disputed domain name resolves to a website which appears to provide financial planning or management services.

The disputed domain name has also been used for an email account which was used to contact a business associate of the Complainant to set up a meeting in Milan, Italy, and to communicate with the Center in connection with this proceeding. The email correspondence to the associate requested the associate’s price list and held out the potential for an order worth millions of Euros. When the associate requested some details about the Respondent and its business, mentioning that it was aware of the Complainant, the email in reply stated:

“same member family. now confirm meeting or stop to waste time.” 5. Discussion and Findings

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy provides that in order to divest the Respondent of the disputed domain name, the Complainant must demonstrate each of the following:

(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights, and

(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, and

(iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules directs the Panel to decide the complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable. A. Respondent’s Identity

Paragraph 1 of the Rules defines the Respondent as “the holder of a domain-name registration against which a complaint is initiated”.

The first named Respondent is the Registrar’s privacy service. The Registrar has confirmed that the disputed domain name is registered through that service by the second named Respondent.

The Center has received emails from the second named Respondent stating he is merely a “webmaster” and requesting that communications not be sent to him.

The Center has also received emails from the email account “[…]@” in response to the Complaint.

It is not clear if the second named Respondent and the person using the “[...]@” email account are the same or different persons. By their terms, they appear to be different persons. If they are different persons, it appears that the second named Respondent holds the disputed domain name on behalf of the person(s) using the email account. In any event, it is clear from the communications received by the Center that any defence to the Complaint turns on the position of the person(s) operating th