Complainant – NAVISTAR INC
Respondent – YAZDI TANTRA
Disputed Domain –
Decision – The Respondent emerges as the decree holder.
Case Summary and Analysis
Complainant is a company incorporated under the laws of United States of America and is the worlds leading manufacturer and trader of commercial vehicles and automobile engines. The complainant has adopted the trademark “TRANSTAR” since late 1968 with respect to goods and services and use of trademark is more than 47 years. The complainant has registered the trademark “TRANSTAR” in USA, Brazil, Turkey and Mexico. The complainant has applied for trademark in India. The Respondent replies that the domain was registered on the behalf of Transtar Logistics PVT and they state that the domain name “Transtar” was obtained upon availability. During the proceedings the complainant constantly keeps putting forward his claim on the mark “TRANSTAR” but the complainant fails to prove the main grounds required to win the dispute. The complainant was able to prove the first ground which is – The domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark or service mark with which the complainant has rights. This was easily proved because the complainant was able to establish its rights on “TRANSTAR” mark, But he failed to prove the second ground which is – The respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name. The complainant was not able to prove this ground since the respondent was using the domain as his email address, Similarly the complainant failed to prove the third ground which is – The domain was registered or being used in bad faith. No proof was provided by the complainant which indicated that the domain was registered with sole motivation of selling since the landing page of the domain stated that the domain was being developed and will be online soon. This was enough to prove that the registration was in good faith. Since the arbitrator was not satisfied with the evidence provided by the complainant, hence the respondent emerged as the decree holder. you can read the dispute in detail Right here .

Personal opinions
This was a normal dispute but something extraordinary about it. Many similar disputes have held before in the favor of the complainant, even when there were similar factual backgrounds. Earlier the rights of the respondent were just simply ignored in such matters, but the result of this dispute was unusual. Perhaps the registry has started to recognize the rights of the respondent, Perhaps we are shifting towards a better future where INDRP will not be a weapon to slay innocent respondents but a shield of justice to protect the rights of not only complainant but respondent too.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *