Its our.in | India's Pride
Complainant – Tiger COATINGS GMBH AND CO KG
Respondents – SUNNY KHAKSE AND SHRI SHARAD DHARIYA of S.D BIOCHEMICALS CO
Disputed Domain – Tigerbrand.in
Decision – Complaint has denied, Tigerbrand.in to remain with the respondent.
Case Summary:
Complainant
In the given dispute the complainant was incorporated as Tiger COATINGS GMBH AND CO KG.It was founded in the early 1930s in Austria for producing oil-based paints and plaster putties and thinners. The Complainant adopted the trademark TIGER in the year 1934 and it was extensively advertised worldwide.
The Complainant owns the trademark “TIGER” in several countries in the world including Algeria, Austria, Bosnia, Switzerland, Chile, Colombia, Egypt, Kazakhstan, Kenya, India, Indonesia, Iran, and Israel.
The disputed domain was registered in the name of Respondent since June 25, 2014. The complainant filed a petition that the disputed domain name www.Tigerbrand.in is clearly identical/ confusingly similar to the complainant’s trademark.
Respondent
The respondent responded to the arbitrator emails and given enough information regarding 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.
The Complainant owns several trademarks all around the world and extensively used worldwide. Hence, the domain name tigerbrand.in is confusingly similar to the trademark “TIGER” in which the complainant has rights.
2)The registrant has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of domain name.
The respondent has started his business of marketing in the year 1977 and began his industry unit in the year 1988. The respondent 1 has legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.
3)Registrant’s domain has been registered or being used in bad faith.
The complainant has failed to prove bad faith part as the respondent has been using the name for legitimate business purpose and also owning a Trademark since 1992.
Decision:
Honourable Arbitrator DR. Ashwinie Kumar Bansal taken the decision as the “Disputed domain name will remain with respondent as the complainant has failed to prove the three rules”.
In my opinion, the honourable arbitrator has made the right decision. This dispute decision also set another precedent to stop the aggressive complainants taking over the names from legitimate owners. It’s clearly RDNH (Reverse Domain Name Hijacking) attempt by the complainant.
Please read the further details about the dispute” @Tigerbrand.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 Our.in and Our.in does not assume any responsibility or liability for the same.
