Complainant: Mr Pradeep Misra
Respondent: Radiantly Life and Jeevan Deep Services Pvt Ltd.
Disputed Domain: Apanaghar.in
Decision: complaint has denied, Apanaghar.in to remain with the respondent.
The complainant is the founder & director of Rudrabhishek Enterprises Ltd.The complainant holds Real Estate Consultancy for the last 25 years and also providing wide range of services including Urban Planning, Architectural Designing, Structural Designing.
The complainant registered the trademark “APNA GHAR” as a device mark has been registered under classes 35 and 36 since 2007 and 2015. Apnaghar.co.in domain name has been registered in 2005. In September 2017, the Complainant learnt about the use of the Respondent’s Disputed Domain apanaghar.in and finds confusingly and deceptively similar to the registered Trademark “APNA GHAR” of the Complainant.
Couple of legal Notices were issued to respondent but the Respondent failed to give reply because of the wrong address mentioned in Whois website and hence the tribunal should take a decision considering the evidence provided by Complainant and analysing the laws of INDRP .
The arbitrator finds that the disputed domain name is generic and used by several tlds like .net ,.org,.info, .biz, gives an example that a pakistan national holds apnaghar.com in the year 2001 which was not used in bad faith
1)Registrant’s domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a name, trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights.
Complainant holds registration for the trademark APANA GHAR in India.The trademark is being used by the Complainant to identify its Real Estate business.The disputed domain name APANAGHAR is confusingly similar to the website and Trademark of the Complainant.
2)The registrant has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of domain name.
The disputed domain name apanaghar.in is a generic term which can be used by anyone, in this kind of cases secondary meaning will decide whether the registrant has rights or not but, complainant failed to provide the compelling evidence of secondary meaning.
3)Registrant’s domain has been registered or being used in bad faith.
The Arbitrator need not address the element of bad faith registration and use, as the Complainant has failed to prove the second rule.
Honorable Arbitrator Ankur Raheja taken the decision as the “ Disputed domain name will remain with respondent as the complainant has failed to prove the three rules”.
Wow, what a matured decision? that to in INDRP space, I am totally surprised reading the level of maturity this INDRP arbitrator has displayed ( I wish the rest of them follow the facts over theory like this arbitrator has done), perhaps a new chapter is opened in the INDRP dispute resolution stage. It’s landmark decision and perhaps one of the very few INDRP arbitrators who can make such right decisions. This decision is clearly in par with the UDRP decision making standards. Hope the other INDRP arbitrators will learn a thing or two from this decision.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed within this article are the personal opinions of the author. The facts and opinions appearing in the article do not necessarily reflect the views of Our.in and Our.in does not assume any responsibility or liability for the same.