A new INDRP has been filed over FDC.in on 25 August 2017 and the matter has been allotted to the new Arbitrator – Mr. Harshavardhan Sancheti, which is a first matter for him.
The Domain Name was registered on 16 Feb 2005, 12 years back, therefore matter should fail due to principle of laches. And nowhere it carries any parking page or any ADs, to have acted in violation of Trademark of any Trademark owner.
The Domain Details are as follows:
Created On:16-Feb-2005 06:35:14 UTC
Last Updated On:07-Aug-2017 05:36:54 UTC
Expiration Date:16-Feb-2018 06:35:14 UTC
Sponsoring Registrar:Key-Systems GmbH (R48-AFIN)
Registrant Name:Christian Schmidt
Registrant Organization:TERRA PRETA GmbH
Registrant Street1:Gustav-Mueller-Stasse 1
Registrant Postal Code:10829
The Complainant in the matter could be FDC Limited, Mumbai who have recently filed for Trademark FDC with Trademark Registry and they deal in medicines, pharmaceutical, etc. Otherwise it is difficult to guess the Complainant for a 3 Letter domain name, as FDC as an acronym can stand for anything and there is no brand as famous, which could have discouraged the Registrant from keeping away from FDC.in at the time of Registration in 2005, the day of launch of .IN Domain Names !
There have been some UDRP matters on such grounds like <imec.com>, wherein Respondent pleaded similarly and saved upon the Domain Name:
Imec International Stichting van Openbaar nut a/k/a Imec International v. IMEC Hosting [Claim Number: FA1702001716823]
The domain <imec.com> comprises a generic or common collection of four letters that is used as an acronym to identify many different organizations. Respondent has identified 16 other registered domains resolving to 15 different entities that include IMEC that are unrelated to Complainant or Respondent. Respondent identified four other U.S. trademark registrants of the mark IMEC in connection with goods and services unrelated to Complainant.
The facts show that Complainant knew of Respondent’s domain registration since at least 2007. The almost 10 year delay in bringing this action alone is evidence that it did not truly believe that Respondent had registered the disputed domain name in bad faith.
Also in MEZ.com, it was held Panelist that:
The Respondent has established that, as one might expect, the term “MEZ” is in widespread use, particularly as an acronym and that the disputed domain name is part of a pattern of similar three-letter domain names owned by it.
Wherein Respondent had contended as follows:
There are limitless potential uses of the term “MEZ”, which is a common acronym. A Google search for the term yielded some 27 million results. There have never been any links on the website relating to the Complainant. There is no evidence that the Complainant operates a well-known brand.
The fact that “MEZ” is a three-letter combination and used by many third parties, including as a common acronym for entities unrelated to the Complainant, is evidence that the Complainant has no exclusive rights in the term and this supports the Respondent’s legitimate interest in the disputed domain name.
Similarly, in the recent matters of <sog.com>[SOG Specialty Knives and Tools, LLC v. Val Katayev / Poise Media Inc – Claim Number: FA1704001726464] and <atc.com> [ATC Group Services LLC v. BatchMaster Software, Inc. – Claim Number: FA1703001722646] have been rightly denied.
While under INDRP, recent unfavorable decision was in the matter of WWF.co.in, but that acronym was quite famous to have been defended in any case. Therefore, was lost in INDRP but facts seem to be different in case of FDC.in matter.
Though, in the absence of the complete knowledge about the facts of the matter, it is not possible to guess about the exact outcome… it may vary from case to case basis. But in any case let’s hope for a good decision from a new Arbitrator !