Complainant –  Man Truck and Bus, AG

Respondent – Abhimanyu Sikarwar

DisputedDomain –

Decision – is awarded to Man Truck and Bus, AG

Case Summary:

Complainant :

In the given dispute the complainant was incorporated as “Man Truck and Bus, AG.
The complainant owns several websites like,, having global and india access.The complainant is one of the Europeans leading manufacture of commercial vehicles,engines and mechanical engineering equipment with annual revenue of  approximately ₹1149.27 billions in indian currency.

The complainant’s various products being used in India between the years 1958 to 1964 also started its operations in the year 2006 in India as subsidiary MAN Trucks India Pvt. Ltd .The complainant claims to hold trademark of MAN which is the essential part of their trade name MAN TRUCK AND BUS enjoys worldwide use,reputation,goodwill and commercial activities, advertisements.

The complainant claims that the responded registered disputed domain name in the year 2012  as a part of act in bad faith to mislead innocent customers and clients thereby cause indirect connection with the complainant so, the complaint was produced before the Arbitrator on January 1,2018.

Respondent :

The respondent replied to the tribunal issued E-mail on january 20,2018 that he is willing to transfer the subject matter domain to the complainant and seeking to know the transfer process.He also sent an affidavit on january 28,2018 to transfer the dispute domain name to the complainant in response to the tribunal.However, the affidavit cannot be accept as a “grant” by the tribunal because the respondent mention himself as designated partner of M/s Ottoedge Services LLP not the owner.

As per INDRP law only the owner can have the right to transfer their domain names not  a partner, according to Whois search result the owner of the disputed domain is Abhimanyu Sikarwar but, in the affidavit the disputed domain got registered under M/s Ottoedge Services LLP.

The tribunal decided neither Abhimanyu Sikarwar nor M/s Ottoedge Services LLP have right to own the disputed domain name as its a violation of trademark laws and poitrated the respondent as a cyber pirate because of his illegal involvement in visitors trafficking to get money by sale the disputed website.

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 MANTRUCKANDBUS which would create confusion,Anyway the use of trademark Respondent “MANTRUCKANDBUS” 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 SUDARSHAN KUMAR BANSAL 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 *