Its our.in | India's Pride
From great many years domain investors have been wrongly compared to cyber squatters, Due to the lack of awareness regarding this industry, arbitrators have ignored the rights of the the domain investors during the INDRP disputes and have favored the plaintiffs with deep pockets…Until now. Recently an arbitrator understood this on going problem and took over the case differently. For the first time the dispute was viewed from a different angle, from the respondent’s prospective. The arbitrator Mr Ankur Raheja took this opportunity to mend and set the course right so justice would be available to all. The given INDRP dispute which will be discussed in detail below installed a chip of faith within the domain investors who are mostly respondents. This dispute sent a message to all the wrong doers that law may be blind but its not deaf, the rights of the respondents will be heard and the system of law will not bend towards rich plaintiffs. Now lets discuss the INDRP dispute which changed favored the change that we all desire.
AREVA Société Anonyme V. Rajendra Mishra
Disputed Domain – ArevaIndia.in
Arbitrator – Ankur Raheja
Case Summary
In the given dispute complainant is AREVA Société Anonyme à Directoire et Conseil de Surveillance. Complainant is a nuclear industry leader with a global presence. Complainant provides solutions for each stage of nuclear power generation; from uranium mining to used fuel recycling, including reactor design and related services. The complainant has good recognition in India too. Complainant states that the term “Areva” does not have any dictionary meaning in any known language. Which means that the respondent can’t take a stand stating that the term “Areva” is a generic term. Complainant states that they are the rightful owner of the trademark “AREVA” and their mark is protected in various countries. Complainant provides the list of domains which are more than 300 that are owned by the complainant with regard to the term “Areva”. Complainant owns the .com version of the disputed domain “ArevaIndia”. The complainant further establishes the fact that the Domain is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark with the complainant has rights with by stating the use of the term “AREVA”. This mark is owned by the complainant in multiple countries hence the complainant was able to establish this first ground. Next the complainant states that the domain name has been registered in bad faith by the respondent, to back this allegation the complainant further states that their trademark is famous worldwide and respondent was aware of this trademark. Further the complainant alleges that the Respondent is using the Domain Name to intentionally create a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source. Complainant further alleges that the respondent doesn’t have any legitimate interest or rights with the domain registered but the complainant failed to prove this ground because the disputed domain lead to the website of the respondent’s business with the name of Areva Logistics Pvt Ltd. Respondent was given multiple chances to file his response but he failed to do so. The Arbitrator,therefore,has no other option but to proceed with the proceedings and to decide the complaint on the basis of the material on record. The Panel determines that Complainant has failed to establish that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Because Complainant has failed to establish an element necessary for a finding of abusive domain name registration and use, the Panel need not address the element of bad faith registration and use. Complainant’s request for relief is denied. Hence the Respondent emerges as the decree holder. If you wish to read the entire story by yourself then click here.
Personal Opinions
Usually such disputes with similar factual background of the proceedings end up in the favor of complainant for no reason. This is for the first time the arbitrator took the situation in his own hands to make a mature decision. In life our stand for a noble cause is enough to call someone a hero. Perhaps this dispute will act as an example for upcoming decisions and make wrong doer’s understand that everything can perish, but law will prevail.
