Complainant: Lens.com Inc. Las Vegas, Nevada, USA
Respondent: Ju J friend International, Seoul, Korea
Domain Registrar: WebIQ Domains Solutions Pvt Ltd.
The complaint was based on various international trademark registration by the Complainant Company across various classes, owns the trademark “lens.com”. Based on the use of the said Trademark in USA submitted that it is the sole proprietor having sole and exclusive rights to use the said Trademark “lens.com”.
The complainant submits that as the disputed domain name is ‘www.lens.in’, it is clearly identical/confusionly similar to the complainant’s Trademark – “Lens.com” in which the complainant has exclusive rights and legitimate interest.
The Panel noted that the disputed domain name registered by the Respondent while being identical to the Corporate as well as Trademark of the Complainant does not automatically prove that the Complainant has rights in the disputed Domain Name “www.lens.in”. Further it has been noted that the Complainant is indirectly trying to show rights in the generic word “Lens’, which can never be subject to a Trademark registration or exclusive use.
Also, the Respondent did not need any authorization or licence to use the generic word “lens” in its domain name. The complainant has not proved that it holds any trademark rights in the generic word “lens” either through registration or by acquiring secondary meaning in the territory of India. Further, the panel did not agree with the contention of the Complainant that the Respondent’s website of the disputed domain name carries nothing but sponsored links of other companies providing a variety of products and services.
Panel also held that the Respondent has not incorporated the mark of the Complainant. The only word that is common between the disputed domain name and the trademark of the Complainant is the word “lens”. The word “lens” cannot be granted as an exclusive protection in favour of any one person.
As a result, none of the INDRP conditions were satisfied by the Complainant but the Respondent had held they are unrelated to the Domain Name and almost dis-owned ownership to the Disputed Domain Name Lens.in. The situation that arose was that the Complainant failed to prove its rights in the disputed domain name and the Respondent does not want to be related to the Domain name. Hence, held Domain Name be confiscated by the .IN Registry and the registration of the Domain Name be cancelled !!!
Complete decision is available at: https://registry.in/system/files/lensin.pdf
- INDRP filed against in-use Generic Domain Lens.in
- Delhi High Court: INDRP Arbitrators do not have power to confiscate disputed domain
- TAMO.in ruled in favor of TATA MOTORS in INDRP Proceedings
- INDRP – HuntNews.in – Decision
- INDRP Decision in HuntNews.in