Turk Hava Yollar UDRP Dispute over Domain Name Thy.co

Turk Hava Yollar (Turkish Airlines) filed a Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) application with the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) with the intent to acquire the domain name Thy.co.

Parties and Background

Turk Hava Yollar has operated Turkish Airlines since 1933 and has a long history and extensive influence in the field of air transportation. It not only owns the international trademark THY, registration number 900857, which was registered on April 3, 2006 in multiple jurisdictions (including the United States, where the Respondent is located), and the registration services cover international categories 37, 39 and 41, but also has trademark registrations for "Turk Hava Yollar" and "Turkish Airlines" in Turkey since 1996.

The Respondent is the domain name administrator of FindYourDomain.com in the United States of America, represented by the US law firm Grant G. Carpenter.

The disputed domain name Thy.co was registered on July 21, 2010. It resolves to a parked webpage with links to various unrelated topics. At the time of filing the complaint, the disputed domain name was priced at $34,999.

Respective claims and reasons

The complainant claimed that the domain name was easily confused with the THY trademark, and the respondent had no relevant rights and registered it in bad faith. The respondent was unable to contact the respondent due to privacy services and accused it of reverse domain name hijacking.

The respondent believed that "thy" is a common word with intrinsic value, such as its long history of use in English. Moreover, THY is not the complainant's main trademark and has limited popularity outside Turkey. It also pointed out that many companies have "thy" related trademarks, and their registered domain names are legal and compliant and not malicious.

Panel ruling

The domain name is the same as the THY trademark, which meets the first element of the policy; because it was not determined to be registered in bad faith, the right or legitimate interest of the respondent was skipped; it was determined that the complainant had no evidence to prove that the respondent registered in bad faith, and the third element was not established; the decision on reverse domain name hijacking by the complainant was refused, and the complaint was finally dismissed.