Complainant –  Faber Industrie S.P.A.

Respondent – Aditya Narayan

Disputed Domain –

Decision – is awarded to Faber Industrie S.P.A.

Case Summary:

Complainant Overview:

In the given dispute the complainant was incorporated as “Faber Industrie S.P.A”. The complainant is the first company to make kitchen hoods, founded in the year 1955.Its the best company till date in both the quality and quantity.Over 2,000 retail counters for sales and service across India.In India, the complainant manufacturing plant is located in Pune.

The complainant holds trademarks FABER all over the world including India under classes 6,11 and 21.The complainant main website is addition to that, the complainant has an International registration under No 1343497 for the mark FABER in classes 11 and 21 since November 30, 2016.

In India, Complainant has four registrations in its name for the mark FABER.
Further,the complainant has registered a number of domain names like 19, 2015) , 18, 2007) , 15, 1999) , 14, 1999) , 14, 2010) and few other.

Complainant Testimony:

The complainant claims that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name on July 4, 2017.Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is used to promote services related to kitchen appliances and hoods under the mark FABER.

Further,the respondent owns hundreds of domain names allegedly infringing well-known third party trademarks under .in extension,including,,,,,,, and a few other.

Complainant claims that Respondent has registered two disputed domains and as well.SO, complainant forwarded a cease and desist letter to Respondent by email on November 14,2017.No response was received from the respondent hence complainant filed a complaint with NIXI in December 2017.

Respondent Salutation:

On JANUARY 30,2018 Tribunal issued a notice to Respondent directing it to file a response within 10 days.However, no response was received from respondent.
NIXI informed the Arbitral Tribunal that the courier agency was unable to deliver the hard copy of the complaint to the respondent.Hence the tribunal sent an email based on the details from Whois records on January 24, 2018.

The respondent failed to give a reply to the Tribunal mails so, as per section 25 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act the arbitrator is competent to make the award if Respondent fails to file the reply before him

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 confusing 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 FABER which would create confusion, anyway the use of trademark “FABER” by the respondent is not legal as he has not obtained any permission from the trademark holder.Therefore the Respondent has no legitimate right to 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.


Honorable Arbitrator C.A.Brijesh taken the decision as the “complainant has succeeded in its complaint”.Arbitrator has quoted the below reason

Arbitrator found that the repondent bought a lot of domain names similar to well known company website names and want to cash them ,which potraits himself as a cybersquatter.The respondent intensionally bought the disputed domain name to grab the audience using the complainant trademark FABER.Considering all the evidence it was clear that the respondent used the disputed domain name( in bad faith.

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 *