Complainant –  TOTER LLC.


Disputed Domain –

Decision – is awarded to TOTER LLC.

Case Summary:


In the given dispute the complainant was incorporated as TOTER LLC. The complainant is the top-selling cart brand for the curbside collection of waste, recycling, and organics, stationary containers, front-load containers, tilt trucks, cart lifters, and more for a variety of markets.

The complainant has an extensive presence on the Internet and maintains an active website claims ownership of the trademark TOTER since 1960. The Complainant registered the trademark TOTER in India, with registration No. 3550077 for goods under classes 20 and 21.

In addition to the trademark registration, the Complainant owns trademark registrations for TOTER in numerous countries like Great Britain, Peru, Germany, Canad, Switzerland, Italy, Mexico, Argentina, and Benelux.

The complainant enquired about the disputed domain name in whois record and found that the registrant of the disputed domain name is Mr.Robert Whiting who is a resident of Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America. He is the co-founder and director of the respondent.

This finding proves that the respondent had intentionally sought to violate and benefit from the enormous goodwill generated by the complainant’s trademark TOTER.


The complainant sent a cease and desist notice dated April 15, 2017, to immediately transfer the disputed domain name to the complainant. However, the respondent informed the complainant that they are willing to settle the matter and further requested to send terms of the settlement. However, the respondent refused to transfer the disputed domain name to the complainant.

Respondent has Failed to file a formal response to the complaint in spite of the opportunities given to him by the Arbitrator.

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.

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 TOTER which would create confusion, anyway the use of trademark “ TOTER ” 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.



Honorable Arbitrator Pooja Dodd taken the decision as the “complainant has succeeded in its complaint”.


It is clearly proven that the respondent used the disputed domain name in bad faith. Toter is a well-known trademark and is a developed website. To get benefitted from the goodwill of the Toter name and the keyword traffic, the respondent registered for the disputed domain name.Honorable orbitrator taken the right decision.

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 *