Read the decision here

The Panel considers that the Complainant’s evidence indicates the two different meanings of “kanka”- one a buddy and the other a trademark – and that these were both recognized by the algorithms used on the
website platform to generate automated searches.  The Panel does not find that the Respondent
intentionally used the disputed domain name to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website or
other online 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
its website or location.

Currently the disputed domain name resolves to a search engine, the homepage of which has links to
websites for roommates, pen pals and classmates which relate to the Turkish meaning of “kanka”.  To reach
websites that promote the goods and services of the Complainant’s direct competitors, the Internet user
must insert a term into the search engine which relates to the goods and services of the Complainant’s
competitors.  This is how an Internet user would carry out a search through any other search engine.  The
Panel finds that the Respondent has not used the disputed domain name in bad faith. Further, the Panel finds that the Respondent did not register the disputed domain name for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor.

In relation to the offer to sell the disputed domain name, this is shown in a banner which is automatically
generated by the website platform not the Respondent.  This is not something that is within the control of the
Respondent.  Further, the Respondent did not accept the Complainant’s offers to buy the disputed domain
name.  Therefore, the Panel finds that the Respondent did not register or acquire the disputed domain name
primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the
Complainant (the owner of the trademark or service mark) or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the disputed domain name.

The Panel finds that the Complainant has failed to substantiate the essential third limb of its Complaint under
paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.

‘via Blog this’