INDRP DISPUTE DECISION REVIEW

Complainant –  Benett,Coleman & Co. Ltd.

Respondent – Nanda Ravi

Disputed Domain – ETIMES.IN

Decision –  ETIMES.IN is awarded to Benett, Coleman & Co. Ltd.

Case Summary:

Complainant

In the given dispute the complainant was incorporated as “Benett, Coleman & Co. Ltd“. The complainant is from “The Times Group”.It is one of the well-known newspaper’s publishers in India. Also published journals, Magazines, and books.

The complainant has started their business journey more than 178 years ago. It has more than 40 dailies and periodicals in 6 languages with 150 editions having 33 publishing centers and 37 printing centers.

The complainant “TIMES Group” is not only famous in Print business but also other media
business including radio, TV, internet etc in INDIA.TimesJobs is one Indias leading Job search portal.
The complainant owns “Etimes” trademark with a registered number 624240 and 689283, since 1994 and 1995.

The complainant came to know that the respondent is using the disputed domain name to grab traffic from the good wheel of the trademark E-TIMES. The respondent also posted a broken link in the disputed domain name stating “This site can’t be reached”, WWW.etimes.in’s server DNS address could not be found. So the complainant filed a complaint against the respondent.

In response to the complaint filed by the complainant, On May 05, 2018, the arbitrator issued a notice to the respondent.

Respondent

The respondent claims that the disputed domain name is a generic name and the complainant has no right to own it. He also mentioned that ETIMES trademark was not owned by the complainant. He used to buy domain names and sell it for a good market price, the disputed domain name is also a part of it.

The respondent claims that they decided to hold on to the domain and not sell and continue working on its development, that the complainant may have filed INDRP as part of plan B for failing to acquire for the amount they are willing to pay.

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.

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 ETIMES which would create confusion, anyway the use of trademark “ETIMES”  by the respondent in his domain name 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.

 

Decision:

Honorable Arbitrator Dr.Sudhir Raja Ravindran taken the decision as the “complainant has succeeded in its complaint”.

Please read the further details about the dispute” @ETIMES.IN

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