The Domain Butterfly.in is registered since 16 Feb 2005, i.e. the date when .IN extension was made public by .IN Registry and has been held by Mr Amit Sidhwani, who is an employee with USHA International.
USHA International is a famous home appliance manufacturer, which includes sewing machines brand Butterfly. Therefore, holding of such a domain name with a legitimate purpose without having an active website over the Domain Name, should not do any harm.
It is not possible to guess the name of the Complainant, as there are few companies holding Trademark over the word BUTTERFLY but they are not so famous to provide them any right to stake claim over the said Domain Name – Butterfly.in. One of such claimant is based at Chennai who has registered Trademark under Class 11 and also owns Domain Name www.ButterflyIndia.com.
On the other hand, if the INDRP is as a result of any internal dispute between the company, that can also be interesting to watch, because such cases are not uncommon these days where the Company has given control of the Domain Names to an employee and on his resigning, Company forgets to take charge of the virtual properties like Domain Names, then their only option is to file for Domain Disputes for a speedy remedy.
But if the case is otherwise, say ButterflyIndia.com is claiming rights, the USHA Company should file a proper response and apply for RDNH (Reverse Domain Name Hijacking) under the Policy. Similarly, RDNH order was passed in the matter of Computer.in (INDRP/008) in 2006 and that was the only time an RDNH has been passed in the INDRP history.
RDNH Circumstances: Paragraph 15(e) of the UDRP Rules provides that, if “after considering the submissions the panel finds that the complaint was brought in bad faith, for example in an attempt at Reverse Domain Name Hijacking or was brought primarily to harass the domain-name holder, the panel shall declare in its decision that the complaint was brought in bad faith and constitutes an abuse of the administrative proceeding”.
Previously, RDNH was passed under UDRP Policy only when the same was specifically demanded by the Respondent but now the panelists have taken the view that relief can be granted otherwise also.