WIPO Decision Review – INTOCABLE.com

    Our.in is a dedicated platform to cover the updates of Indian Domain Names , first time we are publishing a WIPO decision review. WIPO Decisions are so global and also the principles are so common and applicable across all domain extensions in our honest opinion. Let me join thanking the IP law specialist Mr Gurpreet from Amarjit & Associates who has contributed this decision review for the benefit of the society and domain investment community.

    WIPO Panel concludes Domain Trading in itself is not in bad faith unless Respondent, uses the Domain in a manner that infringes Trademark Rights of the Complainant.

     In a three panel decision, Domain name <intocable.com> was declined to be transferred to the complainant for the lack of evidence provided by Complainant to prove the Bad faith element of the Respondent.

     The facts of the matter are as follows.



    1. The complaint in the administrative proceedings was filed by Intocable Ltd. Which is a renowned musical group.


    1. The mark “Intocable” is a Spanish term for “Untouchables”


    1. Complainant owns US Trademark Registrations for the mark “Intocable” in respect of his offerings of the musical services and goods.


    1. The complainant has used the mark since the year 1994 in respect of his goods and services.


    1. Complainant has spent money as well as time in promoting the mark “intocable” through advertising, marketing on various mediums including Internet.


    1. The Domain name <intocable.com> was first registered on March 21, 1998.


    1. More recently the Domain Name was registered in 2014-2015.


    1. Complainant filed UDRP against the third party registrant ( WIPO Case No. D2015-1256) and the matter was settled between the complainant and the third party wherein the domain name was transferred to the complainant. The complainant acquired the ownership of the Domain Name on August 22, 2015.


    1. The complainant then stated that due to no fault of his own, the Domain Name expired and he cannot renew the same.


    1. The Respondent then purchased the Domain Name from an auction site Namejet in April 2016.


    1. Respondent was using the Domain Name to operate a parking page with Domain broker Sedo.com and making it available for sale as Premium Domain on Sedo. The Sedo pages were written in English language.


    1. The complainant immediately emailed the Respondent notifying him of his rights in the Domain Name but the Respondent declined to transfer the Domain Name.


    1. Complainant contends that after receiving the Complainant’s demand to transfer the domain name on May 3, 2016, Respondent put up a new Sedo page in Spanish Language with general information about “Untouchables”. However, the page still offers the Domain Name for sale and links to the Spanish Language version of the Sedo site where it is listed for sale as Premium Domain name.


    1. The complainant filed the instant complaint with WIPO being case no. 2016 – 1048.


    1. The complainant states that he has a Trademark rights in the mark “Intocable” which is a registered mark and has also been used in commerce since 1994.




    1. Respondent is in the business of registering Domain Names, development of websites and Trading in Domain Names.


    1. Respondent did not dispute the rights of the complainant in the mark “Intocable”.


    1. He further contended that “Intocable” is a common generic Spanish language dictionary word.


    1. The word “Intocable” means “Untouchable” when translated in English and is defined as “too powerful or important to be punished, criticized” or “too good to be equalled by anyone else”


    1. Respondent contended that


    1. given its demonstrable business interest,
    2. its dictionary word Domain Name portfolio containing many Domain Names similar to instant Domain Name,
    3. The generic and descriptive meaning of “Intocable” and;
    4. the lack of evidence that Respondent targeted Complainant’s Intocable mark,


    The Respondent has rights and legitimate interests in the Domain Name.


    1. Respondent argued that where a Respondent registers the Domain Name consisting of Dictionary terms because the Respondent has good faith belief that the Domain name value derives from its generic or descriptive qualities, the use of Domain name consistent with such good faith belief may establish a legitimate interest.


    1. He further contended that Complainant has failed to put forth any evidence that Respondent is seeking to capitalize Complainant’s goodwill.


    1. Respondent CEO submitted sworn statement indicating he had no knowledge of Complainant or of any of its trademarks or music at the time he registered the Domain Name for Respondent.


    1. Respondent stated that Domain Name in particular has value in the technology/computer sector for a business venture seeking to offer reliable or untouchably safe cyber-security systems. Respondent stated that its vision for how the Domain Name can further that venture is expressed on the webpage currently linked to the Domain name.


    1. Respondent has other Domain Names comprised of and containing Spanish Language dictionary words align with hundreds of other inherently valuable, common use, generic, dictionary word domain names.


    Findings of the Panel


    1. Identical or confusingly Similar


    Since the Respondent never contested the first element of the policy and complainant had vested rights & extensive use of the Trademark “Intocable”, the first element was satisfied.


    1. Rights and legitimate interests.


    The Panel determined that


    1. Respondent has, through the sworn statement of Respondent’s CEO and other information submitted, provided a measure of evidence to rebut Complainant’s prima facie case that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name.
    2. At the same time, the Panel observed that Respondent, a professional in the domain name business, purchased the Domain Name at auction, very shortly after the expiration of the prior registration (and Complainant alleges the registration lapsed through no fault of its own) and apparently without performing any due diligence on whether any third party had rights in the term “intocable”; held the Domain Name for less than a week before being contacted by Complainant and apprised of Complainant’s trademark rights; did nothing more than link the Domain Name to a Sedo.com webpage listing the Domain Name for sale; and immediately after being contacted by Complainant, shifted the webpage away from its pre-dispute content (offering the Domain Name for sale) to new improvised content with an inaccurate copyright notice.
    3. While Respondent is in the business of trading in Domain Names, the Panel does not regard these particular circumstances as sufficient to show Respondent’s use of this specific Domain Name “in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services” under the Policy.


    The Panel, however,  did not reach to any decision regarding the rights and legitimate use of the Domain Name by the Respondent due to its decision for the third element mentioned below.


    1. Registered and used in Bad Faith


    The Panel after reviewing the parties contentions and evidence as has been submitted by the parties concluded as follows -:

    1.  while there is a risk that the statement of Respondent’s CEO is self-serving, the Panel is not in position to reject Respondent’s sworn evidence, even though Complainant’s musical group clearly has some degree of international reputation. On the balance of the probabilities, the Panel cannot find sufficient counter-vailing evidence to conclude that Respondent intentionally targeted Complainant and its INTOCABLE mark when it registered the Domain Name.
    2. The question then becomes whether Respondent, especially as a professional in the domain name business, had a duty at the time of registration of the Domain Name to determine whether registration would infringe or otherwise violate the rights of any third party.The Panel to arrive at the decision referred to WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition (“WIPO Overview 2.0”), paragraph 3.4 (Can constructive notice, or a finding that a respondent “knew or should have known” about a trademark, or wilful blindness, form a basis for finding bad faith
    3. Wilful Blindness: Some panels have applied a concept of wilful blindness in UDRP cases as a basis for finding bad faith. For example, a respondent’s registration of large numbers of domain names through automated processes, with no appropriate mechanism for ascertaining whether these may be identical or confusingly similar to such trademarks, may support a finding of bad faith. Panels holding that a respondent must accept the consequences of turning a blind eye to any third-party trademarks through failure to conduct adequate searches have tended to limit the application of this principle to cases in which the respondent is a professional domain name registrant, or has been found to have engaged in a pattern of abusive registration and use of domain names identical or confusingly similar to trademarks (although some panels have also noted that, in theory, such general principle may be just as applicable to non-professional domain name registrants, who, after all, are also subject to paragraph 2 of the UDRP, which provides: “It is your responsibility to determine whether your domain name registration infringes or violates someone else’s rights.”
    4. The Panel concluded that Respondent, especially as a professional in the domain name business, and consistent with paragraph 2 of the Policy, did have a duty to ensure that registration of the Domain Name would not infringe the rights of a third party. It appears from the record that Respondent failed to perform such checks in relation to the term “intocable.” However, that fact alone is not determinative.
    5. Even if Respondent had performed such due diligence, the word “intocable” is not merely an acronym or fanciful term that could refer reasonably only to Complainant and its musical group; it is also a common Spanish language word. This case is therefore distinguishable from the UDRP cases, Sibyl Avery Jackson and Red Nacional, cited by Complainant. In those cases the domain names in dispute – <sibylaveryjackson.com> and <renfe.com> – referenced the distinctive personal name and acronym for the respective complainants, and carried no other common language meaning or plausible use.
    6. Even if Respondent had been aware of Complainant’s trademark rights, this knowledge would not have necessarily prevented Respondent from registering the Domain Name in good faith for its common meaning, so long as the Domain Name is not used by Respondent in a manner that infringes upon Complainant’s trademark rights. Obviously, if Respondent attempts to use the Domain Name in relation to Complainant or related musical goods or services, Respondent would cross the line. The Panel further noted that any such use, or indeed other indicia pointing to pretext in disavowing knowledge of Complainant, could colour Respondent’s conduct to indicate bad faith intent. The Panel determined that, on the basis of the facts and circumstances in the record, this is not an appropriate case to apply concepts of constructive notice or wilful blindness as against Respondent
    7. The Panel also concluded that on the balance of the probabilities, that Respondent’s use of the Domain Name prior to notice of the dispute, linking it to a Sedo.com webpage where it was offered for sale, was not use in bad faith, especially in view of the sworn statement of Respondent’s CEO that he had no knowledge of Complainant, its trademarks or music. Respondent’s subsequent act, declining to sell the Domain Name in response to Complainant’s request, also does not constitute bad faith use.


    In view of all of the above circumstances, the Panel determined that Complainant has failed to prove that Respondent registered and is using the Domain Name in bad faith.



    1. The three member panel herein determined the trademark rights of the Respondent.


    1. The Panel concluded could not decide the Rights and legitimate interest in favour of any party considering the submissions of the parties and has provided the decision on the basis of the third element of the policy that is “Registration and use of Domain Name in Bad Faith”


    1. Panel while concluding determined that though it was the duty of the Respondent being in the business of buying and selling of Domain Names to conduct due diligence about the third party rights in the Domain Name but the Panel notes that said determination is not conclusive to find the bad faith intent of the Respondent.

     Therefore, to conclude that the Domain name was registered in good faith, Panel noted that nothing precludes Respondent to register the Domain Name consisting of generic term for its obvious meaning so long as the Domain Name was registered in the manner that it does not infringe Complainant’s mark.

     The decision is a promising move for the lot of Domainers who have invested heavily in the Domain names that are generic in nature. However, lot depends upon the facts and circumstances of each matter and any one relying on the decision must seek legal advice from the Domain Name attorney.

     Nothing in the article constitutes any legal advice or constitute any legal relationship with the author. Readers should rely on the legal advice provided by the attorney after discussing the matter with them.

    You can contact me by email. Contact details can be found at www.domainconsultant.tel or can connect on social networking websites “@iplawattorney”


    © 2016, Gurpreet Singh Monga, www.doamainconsultant.tel

    Spread the love
    Published by:

    IP Law – Domainers FAQs – The Most Common Query

    Our.in has several inquiries requesting to clarify the trademark law in the context of domain names registration /investment   , we are fortunate to get the support of Mr Gurpreet Singh Monga from Amarjit and Associates who has volunteered to clarify the common question asked by domainer friends.   Please read further details drafted by the IP Law expert Mr Gurpreet. 


    Hi Friends,

    Through this short questionnaire, I am trying to answer a most common query I come across from Domainers

     Query: Can I register a Domain Name subject matter of earlier Trademark?

     My answer to this is “It Depends”.

    Now when I say it depends it means both yes and no. To understand more, let’s dig little more on the issue.



     Q: The foremost question is what is Trademark and what does trademark registration confer on the owner of the mark?

    Trademark as we all are familiar with, in a lay man language is a source identifier. It identifies a product or service to a particular person or entity.

     For instance, Apple for computers, mobile devices. Amazon for marketplace. Target for Retail Stores and so on.

     Trademark Rights are based on ‘use’ of the mark and not merely having a registration of the mark.


    Q: Next issue is what constitutes “use”?

     ‘Use’ in simple terms is providing goods or service for commercial use of others.

     ‘Use’ can be established by providing evidence of commercial activities provided by the owner of the mark in commerce such as manufacturing, advertising, sales etc.


     Q: So what does Trademark registration confers?


     Goods and services are divided into 45 classes under NICE classification and majority of countries including India refer to NICE classification for registering a trademark. You can view the complete list of goods and services by visiting the link here.


     When an applicant applies for a Trademark, he identifies goods or services of his manufacture. For example, Mercedes Benz for cars, OLX for online marketplace etc.

     The protection of the trademark is provided for specific goods or services applied for and not for all the goods or services in 45 classes unless the applicant has applied for the mark in all the classes. The mark however, is liable to be removed from the register for the goods or services in which there is no use of the mark by the applicant.

     Trademark Registration is a prima facie evidence of use of mark by the owner for the goods and services applied for. It confers a right on the owner of the mark to commercially sell goods or services for which the mark is applied and stop the infringers from using the mark in commerce.

     As described, Trademark registration is a prima facie evidence but not conclusive. That means, a person or entity may hold a Trademark registration but do not use the same in commerce.

     Some countries provide registration of mark on the basis of use. Applicant is required to file Statement of use before the Registration is granted and also periodically file the statement to keep the registration active in some jurisdictions such as United States.

     However, some countries provide registration on the basis of proposed to use claim where no Statement of use is required to be filed to maintain the registration such as India.

     In this scenario, an applicant can apply and granted registration on the basis of proposed to be use claim. The registration so provided may be challenged on the grounds of non-use by the third party and the mark may also be liable for rectification.


    Q: So, How can I know whether the Trademark is used in commerce or not?


    The knowledge can be obtained from common law searches like Internet, business directories etc. Here, professionals can help you to do market research and provide you with detailed analysis in the matter.


    Q: What if I come to know that Trademark is registered but is not used?


    If the mark is not used, party can initiate cancellation proceedings against the registered proprietor of the mark.

    Rectification proceedings can be initiated by the aggrieved party on the grounds as provided under the law. Non-use is one of the grounds under which the Trademark Registration can be challenged.

    Therefore, to conclude, a trademark is a right conferred by law to the owner of the mark to use the same in respect of the goods or services in commerce. However, if the mark is not used for the statutory period of the mark, the same can be challenged and is subject to rectification.


    Q: If the trademark is registered in United Kingdom or United States but I bonafidely adopted the Domain Name incorporating the mark subject matter thereof, Can I defend myself?


    Again the answer is it depends. The matter is subject to the evidence available with you to show the bonafide adoption and use of the mark in commerce.

     Further, the trademark rights are jurisdictional and the rights conferred by the registration in one country cannot spill over other country simply by virtue of local registration.

    However, the spill over reputation can be establish by the owner of the mark by providing an evidence of use thereof in foreign jurisdiction and the burden is high on the owner.

    The trademark rights are conferred on first to use rather first to register.

    I would strongly recommend to contact your attorney to understand the situation.


    Q: So, Can I register a Domain Name to provide goods or services not subject matter of Trademark Registration or prior use by third party?


    Yes You can. If your intention is not to infringe upon the rights of the Trademark owner and to use the Domain name in a legitimate manner, you can use the Domain Name and defend your rights. As described earlier, the trademark rights are based upon first to use and not first to register.

    Whether a use is legitimate or not is also dependent upon various factors. You can contact your attorney to evaluate the matter in light of your particular facts and circumstances.

    I hope the queries are answered effectively and in case you have any further queries, please feel free to contact me for scheduling an appointment and I shall be glad to address your particular concerns. I can be reached at gsmonga[at]gmail.com or you can connect with me on social network at “iplawattorney”. Good luck and Happy Domaining!!!!


    Gurpreet Singh Monga



    Note: Nothing in the article constitutes legal advice by the author. Readers are advised to contact an attorney to discuss the matter before relying on the general advise provided in the above article.

     © 2016, Gurpreet Singh Monga, www.domainconsultant.tel

    Spread the love
    Published by:
  • Keyword.in News

    FreeApps.in Domain Name Sold for 1200 USD **Verified

    ***** OUR.in has verified this sale – updated on 28/Sep/2016 06:00 PM UTC *****
    FreeApps.in domain name has reportedly sold for 1200 USD at Sedo platform. Seller of the domain name has notified Our.in about this sale and Our.in is yet to verify the sale of this domain name. As per the latest who is of the domain name , buyer of this domain name is from cordoba city of Argentina. Already wordpress has installed and seems to be getting read for use.


    Great to hear another .IN name sold and getting ready for use from outside of India. .IN can be used as a domain hack and also can be used as an alternative to .International ,.Internet , .Inc, .Investment , .Insurance, ..etc too. , sale of FreeApps.in domain name looking to be a perfect example towards the same use case.

    We will update this post once the sale of the FreeApps.in domain name has been fully verified. Let me join congratulating both the buyer and seller.

    Spread the love
    Published by:
  • News

    Hillary Clinton Vs Donald Trump – .IN Domain Names

    Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are getting ready for their first presidential debate Monday night, its interesting to look at the possible .IN domain names related to these two US presidential candidates.


    DonaldTrump.in is owned by Trump Organisation. Its Unused and having default name servers of godaddy.

    Domain Name:DONALDTRUMP.IN
    Created On:13-Jun-2013 16:16:50 UTC
    Last Updated On:29-Jun-2016 01:47:33 UTC
    Expiration Date:13-Jun-2017 16:16:50 UTC
    Sponsoring Registrar:GoDaddy.com, LLC (R101-AFIN)
    Registrant ID:CR145258707
    Registrant Name:General Counsel
    Registrant Organization:The Trump Organization

    Registrant Street1:725 Fifth Avenue
    Registrant City:New York
    Registrant State/Province:New York
    Registrant Postal Code:10022
    Registrant Country:US
    Registrant Phone:+1.2128322000
    Registrant Email:generalcounsel@trumporg.com


    DonaldJohnTrump.in is available for registration.

    Trump.in domain name is owned by the below registrant , “Trump” is a generic keyword.in domain name too.

    Domain ID:D538542-AFIN
    Domain Name:TRUMP.IN
    Created On:16-Feb-2005 07:35:31 UTC
    Last Updated On:09-Mar-2016 12:33:16 UTC
    Expiration Date:16-Feb-2017 07:35:31 UTC
    Sponsoring Registrar:Net4India (R7-AFIN)
    Registrant ID:N4IR-11089579119
    Registrant Name:DGM (Internet)
    Registrant Organization:MTNL
    Registrant Street1:8th Floor,Telecom Bldg
    Registrant Street2:Prabhadevi
    Registrant City:Mumbai
    Registrant State/Province:Maharashtra
    Registrant Postal Code:400028
    Registrant Country:IN
    Registrant Phone:+91.2224210387
    Registrant Email:dgminternet@mtnl.net.in

    Trump.in is also unused.



    Hillary.in is owned by a US resident and again there are several thousands of Hillary’s in the world as its a common first name, so not surprising to see its owned by someone else.

    Domain ID:D2351249-AFIN
    Domain Name:HILLARY.IN
    Created On:22-Jan-2007 10:06:08 UTC
    Last Updated On:02-Feb-2016 01:54:30 UTC
    Expiration Date:22-Jan-2017 10:06:08 UTC
    Sponsoring Registrar:Good Luck Domains (R6-AFIN)
    Registrant ID:NER2R-PERRP4042
    Registrant Name:R Patton
    Registrant Street1:PO Box 1265
    Registrant City:Collierville
    Registrant State/Province:TN
    Registrant Postal Code:38027
    Registrant Country:US
    Registrant Phone:+1.19013513189
    Registrant Email:banshman@comcast.net


    Hillaryclinton.in is owned by the below registrant and the same domain name is parked.

    Domain ID:D8152645-AFIN
    Created On:21-Feb-2014 21:44:02 UTC
    Last Updated On:22-Jan-2016 13:13:23 UTC
    Expiration Date:21-Feb-2017 21:44:02 UTC
    Sponsoring Registrar:Enom Inc. (R46-AFIN)
    Registrant ID:c752af8fd422c2f7
    Registrant Name:James Mentz
    Registrant Street1:1411 NW 7th Rd
    Registrant City:Gainesville
    Registrant State/Province:FL
    Registrant Postal Code:32603
    Registrant Country:US
    Registrant Phone:+1.3528703799
    Registrant Email:james@imaginelearningcenter.com


    HillaryDianeRodhamClinton.in , HillaryDianeClinton.in and HillaryRodhamClinton.in are available for registration.

    Spread the love
    Published by:
  • Auctions News

    Sunday Auctions Results – 25-Sep-2016

    Today’s .IN Domain Names Auctions are completed as per plan , several participants are bid on the 11 domain names listed for today’s auction. There is loads of excitement , its like watching a nice cricket / soccer match or watching a great movie with loads of fun. Even if you are not interested to bid , worth participating to see the excitement going on there. Below are the results of the same.


    Spread the love
    Published by:

    Turning Point in the INDRP history (INDRP Dispute Review)

    From great many years domain investors have been wrongly compared to cyber squatters, Due to the lack of awareness regarding this industry, arbitrators have ignored the rights of the the domain investors during the INDRP disputes and have favored the plaintiffs with deep pockets…Until now. Recently an arbitrator understood this on going problem and took over the case differently. For the first time the dispute was viewed from a different angle, from the respondent’s prospective. The arbitrator Mr Ankur Raheja took this opportunity to mend and set the course right so justice would be available to all. The given INDRP dispute which will be discussed in detail below installed a chip of faith within the domain investors who are mostly respondents. This dispute sent a message to all the wrong doers that law may be blind but its not deaf, the rights of the respondents will be heard and the system of law will not bend towards rich plaintiffs. Now lets discuss the INDRP dispute which changed favored the change that we all desire.

    AREVA Société Anonyme
    V. Rajendra Mishra
    Disputed Domain – ArevaIndia.in
    Arbitrator – Ankur Raheja

    Case Summary
    In the given dispute complainant is AREVA Société Anonyme à Directoire et Conseil de Surveillance. Complainant is a nuclear industry leader with a global presence. Complainant provides solutions for each stage of nuclear power generation; from uranium mining to used fuel recycling, including reactor design and related services. The complainant has good recognition in India too. Complainant states that the term “Areva” does not have any dictionary meaning in any known language. Which means that the respondent can’t take a stand stating that the term “Areva” is a generic term. Complainant states that they are the rightful owner of the trademark “AREVA” and their mark is protected in various countries. Complainant provides the list of domains which are more than 300 that are owned by the complainant with regard to the term “Areva”. Complainant owns the .com version of the disputed domain “ArevaIndia”. The complainant further establishes the fact that the Domain is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark with the complainant has rights with by stating the use of the term “AREVA”. This mark is owned by the complainant in multiple countries hence the complainant was able to establish this first ground. Next the complainant states that the domain name has been registered in bad faith by the respondent, to back this allegation the complainant further states that their trademark is famous worldwide and respondent was aware of this trademark. Further the complainant alleges that the Respondent is using the Domain Name to intentionally create a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source. Complainant further alleges that the respondent doesn’t have any legitimate interest or rights with the domain registered but the complainant failed to prove this ground because the disputed domain lead to the website of the respondent’s business with the name of Areva Logistics Pvt Ltd. Respondent was given multiple chances to file his response but he failed to do so. The Arbitrator,therefore,has no other option but to proceed with the proceedings and to decide the complaint on the basis of the material on record. The Panel determines that Complainant has failed to establish that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Because Complainant has failed to establish an element necessary for a finding of abusive domain name registration and use, the Panel need not address the element of bad faith registration and use. Complainant’s request for relief is denied. Hence the Respondent emerges as the decree holder. If you wish to read the entire story by yourself then click here.

    Personal Opinions

    Usually such disputes with similar factual background of the proceedings end up in the favor of complainant for no reason. This is for the first time the arbitrator took the situation in his own hands to make a mature decision. In life our stand for a noble cause is enough to call someone a hero. Perhaps this dispute will act as an example for upcoming decisions and make wrong doer’s understand that everything can perish, but law will prevail.

    Spread the love
    Published by:
  • Auctions News

    Sunday Auctions List – 25-Sep-2016

    36 domain names are received by the .IN auctions group selection panel before the submission deadline of Friday(23rd Sep) 16:00 UTC. After carefully assessing each and every domain name , selection panel has taken utmost care to give an opportunity to include diverse categories of domain names into this week auction and finalized a list of 11 domain names to be auctioned. If you have any feedback to improve on selection process of domain names, please submit all your feedback to selection panel. Kindly note this is still in beta mode, hence the panel request to share all of your feedback and certainly will improve to make it more transparent.

    This week submissions majorly dominated by several keyword.in / Keyword.co.in domain names . As most of the submissions are keyword specific ones, it was a tough job for .IN domain Names auction selection panel to finalize the list of names , .IN auctions group has expressed their sincere thanks to all those members who has submitted their domain names. It is also important to note, those domain names couldn’t make an entry into final list of this week auctions , some of them likely to be considered in future auctions and selection panel will be in touch if there is such an opportunity for those domain names.

    Please find the list of 11 domain names to be auctioned on this Sunday, 25-Sep-2016.

    .IN Domain Names Auctions Group has already received couple of names for next week auction to be conducted on 2nd October too. If you want to submit names for next week auctions , please contact .IN Domain Names auctions group selection panel at the earliest.

    Legal Disclaimer: Our.in is a .IN domain names dedicated blog. Our.in is committed to cover all the news and updates related to .IN names.. Our.in has no direct association with the .IN auctions group although some of our authors play a role in auctions group in their individual capacities.

    Spread the love
    Published by:
  • LLL.in News

    Jio.in is not in use: Is Jio Digital Marketing team effective??

    Its Universal truth, several companies are spending loads of money to acquire new customers and Reliance Jio as a company is spending billions of dollars to gain new subscribers. At the same time of Reliance Jio commercial launch, Mr. Mukesh Ambani announced that the company was targeted to get 100 million subscribers by the end of 2016. One hand Reliance Jio is dreaming or too positive about the target and already revised to acquire 250 million subscribers (source: several media reports) by end of year 2016 and the other hand Jio web / digital marketing team seems to be ignoring a nice opportunity they already has controls on.

    Jio.in domain name is receiving huge traffic and at the same time the website is not getting resolved. Anyone with little commonsense can notice such a high traffic and will make sure the same domain name used to generate new business opportunities for the company. Using JIO.in really establish Reliance JIO as a true Indian brand and can win more trust from its customers. If Reliance prefer to use .com over .IN to support their global branding ambitions, thats fine. They could have at-least forwarded the Jio.in to Jio.com to get the benefit of the huge traffic coming on .IN name. By not doing that a big company like Reliance Jio has proven to the world their digital marketing team is ineffective and wasting a great opportunity they have in hand.

    1) Reliance Jio has purchased Jio.in in 2012 for a premium price from the previous owner of the Jio.in name and then letting that name not resolved.

    Created On:07-Sep-2011 20:00:42 UTC
    Last Updated On:27-Jan-2016 12:47:09 UTC
    Expiration Date:07-Sep-2017 20:00:42 UTC
    Sponsoring Registrar:Net4India (R7-AFIN)
    Registrant ID:N8R442120
    Registrant Name:Reliancedomains Admin
    Registrant Organization:Reliance Industries Limited
    Registrant Street1:3rd Floor, Maker Chamber IV, 222, Nariman Point

    Registrant Street2:
    Registrant Street3:
    Registrant City:Mumbai
    Registrant State/Province:MH
    Registrant Postal Code:400021
    Registrant Country:IN
    Registrant Phone:+91.2222785251
    Registrant Phone Ext.:
    Registrant FAX:+91.2222042268
    Registrant FAX Ext.:
    Registrant Email:reliancedomains.admin@ril.com


    2) Jio.in has Alexa.com India rank 5,243 and a global rank of 75,860

    Jio.in Alexa Rank

    Jio.in Usage Stats

    Jio.in Usage Stats

    Spread the love
    Published by:
  • News

    World Population by 2050 : India will have 1708 Million population

    According to the Population Reference Bureau (PRB.org) , world population rising 33% by 2050 to reach 10 billion population and India will be the worlds most populous country with around 1.708 billion population, which is 17.08% of the world population. Most of the growth is coming from Africa and Asia continents.


    World Population Data Sheet of Year 2016

    PRB Publication Link

    Every business is based on what humans need and how to serve the needs they have. Its all about helping people needs and almost all businesses are shaped around that fundamental principle of serving people. Its quite important to understand the future demographics changes, I firmly believe the world’s economic center also shift as a result of these changes to great extent. Countries like India or Nigeria are going to grow at rapid speed in coming years, to me its a commonsense for all the existing global brands to focus on setting-up their offices / Virtual offices to serve the people in these emerging countries to retain their global brand status. Those brands who resist for this change or couldn’t adapt to this change in a proactive way are likely to loose their global brand status.

    How this can be related to domain investment ?

    1) ccTLDs of these nations where there is a massive demographic shift is about happen will offer massive investment opportunities
    2) Major GTLDs domain names related to these countries population / culture also could offer great investment opportunities
    3) Some of the new GTLDs who can promote effectively in these countries can also offer nice opportunities

    Exciting times ahead 🙂

    Spread the love
    Published by: