INDRP DISPUTE DECISION REVIEW –MASTERPAY.IN

Complainant –  Mastercard International Incorporated

Respondent – M/s Champion Software Technologies Limited

Disputed Domain – MASTERPAY.IN

Decision –  Complaint has declined and Masterpay.in will remain with  M/s Champion Software Technologies Limited.

INDRP DISPUTE DECISION REVIEW –MASTERPAY.IN

Case Summary:

Complainant

In the given dispute the complainant was incorporated as “Mastercard International Incorporated “.Complainant owns a multinational company. The complainant is a technology-driven company and is uses technology and data-driven insight to make electronic payments secure and efficient.

The complainant owns several trademarks like PAYPASS,PAYPASS,CARDMASTER, MASTERPASS, MASTERCOM, MASTERINDEX,Mastercard,MASTERCARD GLOBAL SERVICE,Mastercard Money Send in various classes under trademark application numbers 1236582,937155,1236610,2499438,671244,1248288,842950,1236748,1195000 respectively.

The complainant launched digital wallet services under the mark ‘MasterPass’ in February 2013. The complainant claims that they have a very strong internet presence with the website mastercard.com.The complainant main allegation is the respondent want to take advantage of the goodwill accrued by the complainant over the years in its well-known trademarks.

In response to the complaint filed by the complainant, On April 16, 2018, the arbitrator issued a notice to the respondent intimating to respond within seven days before April 23, 2018.

Respondent

Respondent is in the business and providing services with respect to mobile recharge, DTH recharge, utility bill payment, domestic money transfer. The Respondent registered the disputed domain name on August 02, 2014.

On April 23, 2018, the respondent has filed its response via Email along with the documents on April 24, 2018. The respondent stated, “the disputed domain name is still in existence and the registration of the said domain is renewed periodically also using the trademark MASTERPAY since 2014”.

The Respondent claims that the mark MASTER is a generic term and present in Dictionary. Many companies using the mark Master in their domain name prefix.T he Respondent further claims that the domain name masterpay.in is completely different from the domain name masterpass.com.

In order to win the domain from the respondent in an INDRP dispute, The complainant must prove all three following grounds:

1)Registrant’s domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a name, trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights.

Complainant has proved the disputed name is confusingly similar to the trademark of the complainant. The complainant’s trademarks mark MASTERPASS and  PAYPASS are identical to the disputed domain name.

2)The registrant has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of domain name.

The extensive use of the disputed domain name and trademark shows that the respondent has rights and legitimate Interests over the masterpay.in.Hence,the registrant has the right and interest on the disputed domain name.

3)Registrant’s domain has been registered or being used in bad faith.
Given the arbitrator’s finding under the second element f the policy, the arbitrator concludes that in these circumstances is not necessary to make a finding under this element of the policy.

Decision:

our.in

Honorable Arbitrator ‘Dr. Sudhir Raja Ravindran’ taken the decision as the “respondent succeeded in arguments”.

Please read the further details about the dispute” @masterpay.in

Access to additional articles on INDRP @ INDRP Knowledge Base

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.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Subscribe For Latest Updates