Complainant –  PRET A MANGER (EUROPE)

Respondent –  Sundeep Gupta.

Disputed Domain –

Decision – is awarded to PRET A MANGER (EUROPE).

Case Summary:


In the given dispute the complainant was incorporated as PRET A MANGER (EUROPE). The complainant wons several top-level generic domain names and since 1996. In addition to these domain names the complainant also owns the top level and country-specific domain names, namely:, Pret .cn,,,,,, and many more. The Complainant has extensively promoted and advertised its name PRET A MANGER and has incurred the expenditure in millions every year.

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


The respondent argued that the disputed domain name is only restricted to India, whereas the complainant website is restricted to the UK and other countries only and does not own or operate any business in India and there is no brand visibility in India.

The respondent is one of the directors of M/s Cafe bUDDY’S FOODS Pvt. Ltd which is based on ready to eat “on the go” concept and have a vast presence in India with unmatched services. The respondent stated that the word ” Pret e Manger ” means ready to eat in French language and is a dictionary and generic term. Therefore the respondent had registered the domain name.

Complainant Rejoinder:

The complainant filed Rejoinder stating that “the complainant’s mark PRET A MANGER is registered in various jurisdictions across the world without facing many objections in relation to their alleged descriptive nature thus PRET A MANGER cannot be considered as a generic word”.

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 domain name ‘PRETAMANGER.IN’ 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 PRET A MANGER which would create confusion, anyway the use of trademark “ PRET A MANGER ” by the 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.


Honourable Arbitrator RANJAN NARULA 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 *