Complainant –  STAEDTLER Mars GmbH & Co. KG

Respondent – Suresh Jain


Decision –  STAEDTLERINDIA.IN is awarded to STAEDTLER Mars GmbH & Co. KG.

Case Summary:


In the given dispute the complainant was incorporated as “STAEDTLER Mars GmbH & Co. KG“. The complainant is a German fine writing instrument company and a manufacturer and supplier of writing, artist, and engineering drawing instruments. The Complainant owns several domain names like,,,,, etc.

The complainant is a company registered under the laws of Germany and claims to be a global player in the field of writing, coloring drawing products. The complainant claims to have over 2,000 employees worldwide, and worldwide distribution partners in more than 150 countries.

The Complainant owns the trademark STAEDTLER. In India the complainant’s market its product since 1920 through authorized reseller Alpha International, L-37, Mittal Chambers, 2-2-51, M.G. Road, Secunderabad, Telangana.

According to the complainant, the respondent using the disputed domain name to get traffic using the good wheel of the trademark STAEDTLER. The respondent used the STADTLER trademark and artistic logo in the disputed domain website.


The respondent belongs to India, he owns a stationery shop in Chennai. He runs an online e-commerce website through the website website contains complainant products for sale.

Honb arbitrator sent a couple of emails to the respondent. In the first E-mail, the respondent stated to have invested a lot of money in selling Stadtler products online and sought an offer from the complainant.

In the second email, the respondent has stated that all logos, trademarks, and designs on his website got permissions through official Staedtler importers.

However, the complainant announced that there is no rights or permissions given for the respondent to use the trademarks. The complainant even rejected the money offered by the respondent.

The arbitrator sent a final notice to the respondent and no further opportunity would be granted and thereafter the tribunal would proceed to give its award. The respondent didn’t file any response thereafter.

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.

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 STAEDTLER which would create confusion, anyway the use of trademark “STAEDTLER”  by the respondent in his domain name 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.


Honorable Arbitrator Sudarshan Kumar Bansal taken the decision as the “complainant has succeeded in its complaint”.

Please read the further details about the dispute” @STAEDTLERINDIA.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 *