Complainant –  Mastercard International Inc.

Respondent – M/s Champion Software Technologies Limited

Disputed Domain – MASTERPAY.CO.IN

Decision –  Complaint has declined and will remain with  M/s Champion Software Technologies Limited.


Case Summary:


In the given dispute the complainant was incorporated as “Mastercard International Inc“.It is a multinational company. The complainant is a technology-driven company uses technology and data-driven insight to make electronic payments secure and efficient.

The Complainant owns several trademarks like Mastercom, Masterbanking,Masterpass , Mastercard, and PayPass.In addition, the Complainant also uses and applied for marks like  ‘Master Money’,   ‘MasterWallet’  and “Master Mobile Transactions’ solutions, to name a few.

The complainant launched digital wallet services under the mark ‘MasterPass’ in February 2013. The complainant claims that they have a very strong internet presence with the website complainant main allegation is the respondent want to take advantage of the goodwill accrued by the complainant over the years in its well-known trademarks.

In response to the complaint filed by the complainant, On April 28, 2018, the arbitrator issued a notice to the respondent.


Respondent is in the business and providing services with respect to mobile recharge, DTH recharge, utility bill payment, domestic money transfer. The Respondent registered the disputed domain name on August 02, 2014.

Respondent strongly argues that the complainant only applied for the registration of “Master Money”, “Master Wallet” and “Master Mobile Transactions” marks with the registry. But at present, they haven’t secured the registration of the same. Hence the complainant has no rights on the disputed domain name.

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. The complainant’s trademarks mark MASTERPASS and  PAYPASS are identical to the disputed domain name.

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

The extensive use of the disputed domain name and trademark shows that the respondent has rights and legitimate Interests over the, the registrant has the right and interest on the disputed domain name.

3)Registrant’s domain has been registered or being used in bad faith.
Given the arbitrator’s finding under the second element of the policy, the arbitrator concludes that in these circumstances is not necessary to make a finding under this element of the policy.


Honorable Arbitrator ‘Ankur Raheja’ taken the decision as the “respondent succeeded in arguments”.

The arbitrator has quoted the below reason.

Complainant has failed to establish that the Respondent has no legitimate interest in the Domain Name. Hence, the Complainant’s request that the Domain Name be transferred is DENIED.

Please read the further details about the dispute”

My Opinion: 

It’s a great decision. INDRP has very few arbitrators who are really qualified to make the right decisions , Mr Ankur Raheja is definitely one of the best arbitrators .IN registry has. .IN registry is blessed to have such talented and honest arbitrator who has the guts to rule according the INDRP framework instead of not just ruling in favour of the bigger entity.  Many INDRP arbitrators has done loads of injustice to the smaller  business entities in the past creating a fear among small businesses using the .IN extension.  I wish the rest of the arbitrators take a bit of inspiration from this decision and rule based on the facts than their own beliefs / perceptions.


Access to 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.



One comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *