In the mater of Siteground.in (INDRP/1124)
IT Web Capital Ltd
3rd Floor,
11-12 St. James’s Square,
London SW1Y 4LB,
United Kingdom
(COMPLAINANT)
Represented by
Mr Ankur Raheja
CyLaw Solutions
805, Kaveri Kaustubh I, Bain Bazar,
Sikandra, Agra – 282007
Vs
Maria Dinkel
Caught by DesktopCatcher
Wendenstr. 380,
Hamburg 20537,
Germany (DE)
(RESPONDENT)
The Parties
1. Complainant is IT Web Capital Ltd, 3rd Floor, 11-12 St. James’s Square, London SW1Y 4LB, United Kingdom represented by Advocate Ankur Raheja, Cylaw Solutions, 805 Kaveri Kaustubh I, Bain Bazar, Sikandra, Agra – 282007.
2. The Respondent is Maria Dinkel, Wendenstr. 380, Hamburg 20537, Germany.
Procedural History
3. I am appointed as a sole arbitrator by the National Internet Exchange of India on 11 July 2019 under INDRP Rules of Procedure in above matter. The arbitration is deemed to commence on the same day. The seat of Tribunal is Kolkata, India.
4. These are the mandatory arbitration proceedings in accordance with the .IN Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (“INDRP”) adopted by the National Internet Exchange of India (“NIXI”) The INDRP Rules of Procedure (“the Rules”) were approved by NIXI on 28 th June 2005 in accordance with the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. By registering the disputed domain with the NIXI accredited Registrar, the Respondent gave its consent to the resolution of the domain name disputes pursuant to the IN Dispute Resolution Policy and Rules framed thereunder. Similarly, by its complaint dated 23rd May, 2019 Complainant gave its consent o the arbitration of this dispute.
5. On 9 May 2018 the domain SiteGround.in was registered by the Respondent. The Complainant by a petition dated 23 May 2019 filed this Complaint. On 11 July 2019 this Tribunal was constituted.
6. Apart from a brief email, the Respondent has declined to participate in these proceedings. Both the parties had opportunity to place evidence in support of their case as chosen by them. The parties have not offered any further evidence, explanations or documents in support of their positions.
7. The documents and evidence placed before the Tribunal has been admitted and considered in the arbitral proceedings in accordance to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 and their mandatory provisions of law.
Background
8. The Complainant IT Web Capital was founded in October 2014 as a limited company in the United Kingdom…. The trademark Siteground predates the company, with SITEGROUND.COM registered in 2005 and a trademark in the name of Siteground registered in 2004 by a now defunct affiliate of IT Web Capital. The Complainant is a well established business in web hosting and digital services… and Trademarks all over the world.
9. The Complainant states that it has registered the trademark Siteground all across the world and annexes an exhaustive list of its trademarks:
India 2015 31.01.2017 IT WEB Capital
USA 22.10.2014 09.06..2015 IT WEB Capital
Europa 23.09.2015 12.01.2016 IT WEB Capital
Swiss 24.12.2015 21.06.2016 IT WEB Capital
CA (Canada) 27.06.2016 18.04.2018 IT WEB Capital
HK (Hong Kong) 24.06.2016 24.06.2017 IT WEB Capital
MY (Malaysia) 24.06.2016 24.12.2015 IT WEB Capital
ID (Indonesia) 24.06.2016 not registered IT WEB Capital
TW (Taiwan) 24.06.2016 01.06.2017 IT WEB Capital
TH (Thailand) 24.06.2016 24.06.2016 IT WEB Capital
MM (Mayaumar) 14.09.2016 14.09.2016 IT WEB Capital
CR (Costa Rica) 24.06.2016 19.01.2017 IT WEB Capital
SV (EL Salvador)24.06.2016 12.02.2018 IT WEB Capital
GT (Guatemala) 24.06.2016 not registered IT WEB Capital
HN (Honduras) 24.06.2016 not registered IT WEB Capital
NI (Nicaragua) 24.06.2016 09.02.2017 IT WEB Capital
PA (Panama) 24.06.2016 not registered IT WEB Capital
DO (Domenican Republic) 24.06.2016 16.12.2016 IT WEB Capital
PR (Puerto Rico)13.07.2016 13.07.2016 IT WEB Capital
AR (Argentina) 24.06.2016 07.07.2017 IT WEB Capital
BO (Boluvia) 24.06.2016 10.01.2017 IT WEB Capital
BR (Brazil) 24.06.2016 29.05.2018 IT WEB Capital
CL (Chile) 24.06.2016 16.05.2017 IT WEB Capital
EC (Ecuador) 24.06.2016 10.05.2017 IT WEB Capital
PY (Paraguay) 24.06.2016 not registered IT WEB Capital
PE (Peru) 24.06.2016 04.11.2016 IT WEB Capital
UY (Uruguay) 24.06.2016 10.08.2018 IT WEB Capital
Australia 23.09.2015 23.06.2016 IT WEB Capital
China 23.09.2015 23.06.2016 IT WEB Capital
Colombia 23.09.2015 23.06.2016 IT WEB Capital
Japan 23.09.2015 23.06.2016 IT WEB Capital
10. The Complainant contends that pursuant to INDRP Rule 3(b)(vi) the domain name Siteground.in is confusingly similar to the trademark SITEGROUND in which the Complainant has rights.
11. Complainant further strongly submits that pursuant to paragraph 7 of the INDRP Policy that the Registrant has to demonstrate the use of or demonstrable preparations to use the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or that the Registrant has been commonly known by the domain name. Respondent can satisfy neither criteria, and on the contrary the Respondent’s behavior demonstrates the existence of bad faith within the meaning of paragraph 6 of the INDRP Policy. Complainant relies particularly strongly on the email dated 11 July 2019 in these proceedings as evidence of such bad faith. The contents of the email are set out below in entirely:
Dear
Good morning, I hope this message finds you well 😉I’m writing to you regarding a few doubts :
1. why you think the contents on my website is threats to your clients ? all of the contents are from google.com, I do not think that’s theats.
2. As i know, this domain is already exited for many years.why you did nothing in the past years if you think this domain is a theat ?
3. And I think you should catch this domain fatser than me if you really care about this domain, not email me after i cacthed it.
4.I do not want to do anything illegal.
5.I’m a domain businessman, so if you are interested in this domain, I can give you a kind price , please feel free to contact with me.In fact, I have partnerships with many domain negotiators, because we know further legal action cost a lot of money.
And I am very glad to give you a nice offer, but this domain is not cheap one, registration fees is not enough. it also cost me a lot of money to use catch service to get this domain. only few domains can be sold successful.
Looking forward to your Collaboration and have a nice day
Best regards
Findings
12 The Tribunal has examined each and every on of the Complainant’s contentions but has considered it unnecessary to express a view on each of them. Bearing in mind all the evidence before it, the Tribunal is of the view that the email of 11 of July 2019 from the Respondent is clear evidence that the domain is not useful to the Respondent but is instead an example of cyber-squatting and bad faith within the meaning of paragraph 6 of the INDRP Policy. The rights of the Complainant in the name are undisputed.
Decision
13. In the Tribunal’s view this is a case in which the registration in the name of the Respondent should be cancelled forthwith. The Domain name should be transferred to the Complainant.
14. Costs follow the outcome. The Respondent is ordered to pay the cost of the proceedings at rupees fifty thousand only.
Harshavrdhan Sancheti
Sole Arbitrator
11.10.2019
