A Danish cosmetics company operating from Natulique.com, filed a UDRP against a Turkish cosmetics company, for the domain Natulika.com.
The Respondent, a Turkish individual, was briefly a representative for Natulique products; then, he launched his own brand, offering cosmetics.
According to the UDRP, the Complainant successfully brought legal action against the Respondent in Turkey, where it also enforces its mark.
Upon a request by the Complainant, the 3rd Istanbul Civil Court of Intellectual and Industrial Property Rights rendered a preliminary injunction decision against the Respondent on June 1, 2016, prohibiting the use of the Complainant’s trademark NATULIQUE.
Natulika Facebook page.
The Respondent did not file an official response, but claimed the following:
“In his second email of August 18, 2016, the Respondent mainly argues that he is the legitimate owner of the Turkish word and figurative trademark NATULIKA, which apparently has been registered by the Turkish Patent Institute in February 2016. Furthermore, he argues that the Complainant’s trademark NATULIQUE and the figurative trademark NATULIKA are neither identical nor confusingly similar. In this regard, the Respondent refers to some expert opinion concerning the validity of the trademark registration for NATULIKA, allegedly prepared for a pending invalidity case in Ankara, Turkey. The Respondent did not submit the opinion itself nor any other evidence to the Center in support of its contentions.”
The “Natu-” prefix, a reference to “nature” no doubt, was seen as a very close similarity for the WIPO panelist, Kaya Köklü, to order the domains Natulika.com and Natulika.net to be transferred.
Furthermore, the panelist stated:
“The Panel further believes that the Respondent has chosen a confusingly similar misspelling of the Complainant’s trademark in the disputed domain names in order to intentionally attract and mislead Internet users in their believing that the disputed domain names are somehow affiliated with the Complainant. Deliberately using a confusingly similar misspelling of this nature is, in the Panel’s view, compelling evidence of bad faith.”
For the full text of the UDRP click here.
