Complainant –  Tata Motors Limited.

Respondent –  Amit Badiyani.

Disputed Domain –

Decision – Complaint has denied, to remain with the respondent.

Case Summary:


In the given dispute the complainant was incorporated as Tata Motors Limited. The Complainant is an Indian multinational automotive manufacturing company and a member of the Tata Group. The Complainant owns several websites like,,,,,,,, and

The Complainant claims to be the owner of the trademark HARRIER in relation to land vehicles and parts. In India, the mark HARRIER registered in the name of Complainant since September 07, 2016 under No. 3357314 in Class 12.

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


Respondent is the managing director of Harrier Information Private Limited’ commonly known as HARRIER amongst its customers and clients. He also claims to have incorporated a company in the State of Delaware, USA, under the name ‘HARRIER Information Systems Inc.’ on March 07, 2013. HARRIER Information Systems Inc is an ISO certified company. The original certificate was issued on September 14, 2007.

The respondent operating a website and has its presence on various social media websites such as Youtube, Facebook, and Linkedin. The domain name was created on July 16, 2003. The respondent also one of the directors of land development and construction company under the name HARIHAR infrastructure Development Corporation.

The Respondent registered the disputed domain name on September 17, 2014.

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.

The Complainant registered the domain names,, and on June 28, 2018, and June 27, 2018. But respondent registered disputed domain name much prior to the complainant i.e. on September 17, 2014.

The complainant has failed to satisfy the rule because the respondent has adopted the mark/domain name prior.

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

The respondent provided convincing evidence to demonstrate that it is using the mark HARRIER to promote a genuine business for software development and it has been using the mark HARRIER in connection with its products. Thus the respondent has rights and legitimate interests on the disputed domain name.

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

The complainant has failed to prove bad faith part of the respondent.


Honourable Arbitrator C.A. Brijesh taken the decision as “ Disputed domain name will remain with respondent as the complainant has failed to prove the three rules”.

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 *