Complainant –  Formula One Licensing B.V

Respondent – M.r.Sachin Sahrawat

DisputedDomain –

Decision – is awarded to Formula One Licensing B.V

Case Summary:

Complainant :

In the given dispute the complainant was incorporated as “Formula One Licensing B.V”.The Complainant holds the trademark formula 1 in India under the trademark act 1999 under a lot of classes.The Complainant contends that formula 1 has acquired global reputation and goodwill and are well-known marks.

The complainant finds the disputed domain name is identical to the complainant’s trademark.The TM has been highly publicized and advertised by the complainant in both the electronic and print media globally.


Respondent has failed to file a formal response to the complaint inspite of two opportunities given to him by the Honorable Arbitrator.

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 FORMULA1 which would create confusion, anyway the use of trademark “FORMULA1” by 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. Arbitrator has quoted the below reason.

On perusal of the disputed domain name the panel found that the Respondent has used the disputed domain name and any use of the disputed domain name by the Respondent, would result in confusion and deception of the trade, consumers and public, who would assume a connection or association betwen the Complainant and the Respondent. Thus, the adoption of an identicial tradermark/domain name [] by the Respondent is very much in bad faith.


Honorable Arbitrator James Mukkattukavunkal taken the decision as the “complainant has succeeded in its complaint”.

In my opinion, although the Complainant holds a lot of trademarks related to formula1, formule1 trademark is not registered yet and there is also a developed website related to formule1 “” in India.The content displayed in the disputed domain name is related to hotels not related to racing. Respondent filing a response could have made a difference , however respondent failed to file a response making the honorable arbitrator applying his own logic and delivering the decision.

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 *