Complainant –  Sage Group Holdings Limited

Respondent – Nitin Ramchandra Parkale & Anr

Disputed Domain – SAGEGROUP.CO.IN

Decision – SAGEGROUP.CO.IN is awarded to Sage Group Holdings Limited.

Case Summary:


In the given dispute the complainant was incorporated as Sage Group Holdings Limited. The complainant is a company existing and incorporated under the laws of Canda. It was founded in the Year 1994.

It is a system integration company which designs, manufactures, constructs, supports, and improves industrial control systems that automate process in the defense, infrastructure, manufacturing resources in Australia.

The company established a subsidiary in 2012 in India by the “name Sage Automation India Pvt. Ltd.” It also owns trademarks like SAGE, SAGE DIDACTIC, SAGE TECH ASSIST, and SAGE Automation.

The Complainant mentions that it owns domain names like:


The complainant claims that the disputed domain name is not a developed website, when one visits the webpage hosted at a message is flagged “Sagetech Automation Pvt.Ltd. Our website isn’t quite ready, but you can still…”

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


The responded filed its reply stating that the domain name is neither identical nor confusingly similar with the Complainant’s domain name.

They mentioned that the domain name was created to carry on the business activity in a bonafide manner.

The respondent further state that the absence of information on the website can not be a ground of allegation to say that the disputed domain name was registered under the bad faith.

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 ‘SAGEGROUP.CO.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 SAGE which would create confusion, anyway the use of trademark “ SAGE  ” 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 Jayant Kumar taken the decision as the “complainant has succeeded in its complaint”.


In my opinion, Honorable arbitrator has clearly failed to establish bad faith registration. The details presented are too vague and too weak to establish bad faith. I am sharing my opinion based on the information quoted in the dispute decision document.

Just browsing the company registry database is showing “Sagetech Automation Pvt Ltd” is a registered company and clearly showing the respondent as the director of the company since 2009. The Same also quoted by the respondent to the arbitrator in the response filed by the respondent.

Logos of the Sage Group Holdings Limited and Sage Tech Automation Pvt Limited are totally different, however Honorable arbitrator has felt they are similar. This dispute decision is clearly showing how a big company can hijack the domain name from a rightful registrant using INDRP route.

This kind of outright injustice to SMEs is totally not acceptable and need to be objected. I hope Sage Tech Automation Pvt Ltd challenge this decision in High Court, I am sure they can retain their domain name with them and also establish the reverse domain name hijacking attempt made by Sage Group Holdings Limited.

A simple google search also establishing the details quite nicely.

Please read the further details about the dispute” @SAGEGROUP.CO.IN

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 *