Complainant – BOLLORE

Respondent –  KARTHIKEYAN


Decision – BOLLORELOGISTICS.IN is awarded to BOLLORE

Case Summary:


In the given dispute the complainant was incorporated as BOLLORE.The complainant is the owner of Transport & Logistics company. Bolloré Logistics owns domain names like,,,, and e.t.c,

The complainant has submitted that it owns a number of trademarks including the wording “BOLLORE LOGISTICS” in several counties around the world, including in India. The Complainant registered the domain on January 20, 2009. However, the disputed domain name  registered by the respondent on July 23, 2018.

The complainant filed a petition that the disputed domain name BOLLORELOGISTICS.IN is clearly identical/ confusingly similar to the complainant’s trademark.


The respondent responds to the tribunal mails and filed his petition.  Respondent stated that he bought the domain name under instructions from his client, one Mr. Ashwin. Arbitrator informed that the disputed domain name was registered under the respondent name so he is responsible for the disputed domain name registration.

The respondent proposing that they are willing to surrender the impugned domain to the complainant only upon receiving due compensation. The tribunal announced the judgment with the statements filed by both the complainant and respondent.

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 domain name ‘BOLLORELOGISTICS.IN’ is confusingly similar to the trademark of the complainant.

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

As per the evidence established by Complainant,  the complainant owns multiple domain names comprising the trademark BOLLORE LOGISTICS which would create confusion, anyway the use of trademark “ BOLLORE LOGISTICS ” by the respondent is not legal as he has not obtained any permission from the trademark holder. Therefore the Respondent has no legitimate right over the said domain name.

3)Registrant’s domain has been registered or being used in bad faith.

Finally, the Tribunal finds the disputed domain name has been registered and used in bad faith.


Honourable Arbitrator Ms. Lucy Rana taken the decision as the “complainant has succeeded in its complaint”.

Please read the further details about the dispute”

Access 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 and does not assume any responsibility or liability for the same.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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