Complainant –  Le creuset

Respondent – Yitao, Apex consulting

DisputedDomain –

Decision – is awarded to Le creuset

Case Summary:

Complainant :

In the given dispute the complainant was incorporated as “Le creuset”.The complainant is a leading distributor of cast iron cookware in France and also owns the trademark “LE CREUSET”.Le Creuset India Trading Pvt Ltd is the complainant India’s subsidiary company established on September 1,2005 in India.

The complainant registered the trademark LE CREUSET in France dated on 1951 and 1999 in India also having 115 trademark registrations  all over the world for LE CREUSET, manufactures 300 million products over 70 countries,significant money was invested in advertising to promote their products in is their official website in India.

The complainant discovered that the disputed domain name was being used by the respondent for spreading malwares and commercial benefits using the domain brand name so the complainant sent two cease-and-desist notice to responded dated sep 27,2016 and september 28,2016 to respondent mail [email protected]

The respondent replied to the mail on september 28,2016 demanding $2,829 U.S dollars from the complainant for owning the domain and this situation repeated on March 15,2017 so, the complainant filed a complaint with the .IN registry.


Respondent has Failed to file a formal response to the complaint in spite of two opportunities given to him by the 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 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 trade mark LECREUSET which would create confusion,Anyway the use of trademark Respondent “LECREUSET” is not legal.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.


Honorable Arbitrator Pooja Dodd 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 *