INDRP – HuntNews.in – Discussion and Findings – Preliminary

Preliminary

1. The Arbitrator has reviewed the all the documents placed before it by the Complainant and the Respondent respectively.
2. The Complainant in its complaint has invoked Para 4 of the INDRP, which reads:
3. “Any Person who considers that a registered domain name conflicts with his legitimate rights or interests may file a Complaint to the .IN Registry on the following premises:
   (i) the Registrant’s domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a name, trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;
   (ii) the Registrant has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
   (iii) the Registrant’s domain name has been registered or is being used in bad faith.
4. The Registrant is required to submit to a mandatory Arbitration proceeding in the event that a Complainant files a complaint to the .IN Registry, in compliance with this Policy and Rules thereunder.”
5. The Complainant demanded cancellation/suspension of the Domain Name in terms of Terms and Conditions for registrants, as Registrant is liable to provide and maintain correct WHOIS, on the ground of admission by the Respondent that the said WHOIS email was “infrequently monitored company email ID”. Arbitrator finds that the Domain Name can be suspended on the ground of Inaccurate/False WHOIS Information and not when a Domain Registrant acts indolent and does not care to check the emails regularly. Further, the hard copies of Complaint and also cease and desist notice were duly delivered to the Postal WHOIS address of the Respondent and though Respondent maintains silence in respect of the same but it cannot be assumed to be incorrect. In any case, such matter need to be directly taken up with the Domain Registrar but no such action can be taken by the Registrar as well during the pendency of an INDRP proceedings.
6. The Respondent intervened in these proceedings after a month and requested for one final opportunity to submit its response which will conclusively prove that the disputed domain name in no manner infringes the Complainant’s domain name or trademark. Respondent gave various reasons for delayed intervention including – “… upon intimation from the Domain Registrar (MarkMonitor) of locks being placed on the disputed domain name immediately sought legal representation for the present matter”. But Respondent did not provide any exact timeline in the email dated 10 May 2016, as to when they were informed of locks placed by the MarkMonitor, on the basis of which they were afforded an opportunity. It was only later under Response, the Respondent claims that they were informed of the locks placed by the Domain Registrar in the month of May 2016. Factually, the locks are normally placed within few days of the filing of a Domain Dispute complaint (2 business days in the case of UDRP) to avoid CyberFlight but before any formal proceedings begin. And in this case, it may have been 18 March 2016, which is reflected in the Last Updated Date in the WHOIS for the Disputed Domain or in any case, locks must have been placed by the Domain Registrar in the month of March 2016 itself.