INDRP – HuntNews.in – Discussion and Findings – Trademark Rights

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

1. The Complainant registered the Domain Name www.newshunt.in in October 2008 and while www.newshunt.com has an earlier registration date. Complainant has been using the mark NewsHunt since February 2009 in association with news aggregation and digital publishing services.
2. The Trademark NewsHunt was applied for registration in January 2010 in two different classes 38 and 42. It has been registered in India by the Complainant since year 2011 and 2013 respectively vide application numbers 1907413 and 1907414. The Trademark details in this respect are annexed by the Complainant, which clearly evidences the date of usage as 09 February 2009. The same have also been verified at Trademark Registry online database.
3.  The Complainant’s mark NewsHunt has been used in relation to Mobile Application and also in providing a mobile version of the website online. While the disputed Domain Name <huntnews.in> was registered on 21 July 2015 and has been in use since the end of July 2015 as per Archive.org.
4. In the later half of 2015, the NewsHunt was rebranded as DailyHunt as per media reports online. As a result, the mobile version of the website is now available online at http://m.dailyhunt.in, while previously it was at http://m.newshunt.com (as per Archive.org). And the URL http://m.newshunt.com now redirects to http://m.dailyhunt.in. Arbitrator finds that while the Respondent had adopted the domain name <huntnews.in> in July 2015, the Complainant was still using the mark NewsHunt only actively and mobile version of site as http://m.newshunt.com, which ofcourse had more global reachability in terms of SEO (Search Engine Optimization) than an .IN Domain Name. In any case, the mark NewsHunt continues to be used and appear along with DailyHunt in Google Play store and also on Complainant’s website.The Mobile App “DailyHunt (NewsHunt) News” as it appears on Google PlayStore on a Android Phone has been downloaded over 10 Million (i.e. 1 Crore) times. Which shows it has continuously gained widespread recognition and popularity among the public, which is further proved by the awards and accolades conferred upon the Complainant. Also, it has received good media recognition. Complainant has annexed copies of articles and media reports about the mark NewsHunt including NDTV 24X7, Aircel, Medianama, YourStory, New Indian Express and so on. The Media reports in english have only been considered in terms of Rule 9 of the INDRP Rules of Procedure.
5.  The Complainant claims the mark NewsHunt is a coined term and the Complainant is the Registered owner of the trade mark NewsHunt. The domain name <huntnews.in> of the Respondent, which was registered less than a year back, i.e. on 21 July 2015, is confusingly or deceptively similar to the registered trademark of the Complainant – NewsHunt, which is the mere interchange of prefix to suffix and also confusingly similar to Complainant’s domain name www.newshunt.in and www.newshunt.com. The registration and the use of the confusingly similar disputed domain is a direct infringement of the legitimate rights held by the Complainant of the mark NewsHunt. In the matter of F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v. Relish Enterprises, [WIPO Case No D2007-1629], where it was held that, if the Complainant owns a registered Trademark then it satisfies the threshold requirement of having the Trademark rights and the Domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s Trademark because disputed Domain Name looks and reads like Complainant’s Trademark.
6. In Cadila Health Care Ltd. vs. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (2001) 5 SCC 573, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, inter alia, observed that its decisions in the last four decades had clearly laid down that what had to be seen in the case of a passing off action was the similarity between the competing marks and to determine whether there was likelihood of deception or causing confusion.
7. Honorable Delhi High Court in the matter of Yahoo!, Inc. vs Akash Arora & Anr. [78 (1999) DLT 285] referred to Card service International Inc. Vs. McGee; reported in 42 USPQ 2d 1850, where it was held that the domain name serve same function as the trademark and is not a mere address or like finding number on the Internet and, therefore, it is entitled to equal protection as trademark. Further, Honorable Supreme Court in the matter of Satyam Infoway Ltd vs Siffynet Solutions Pvt. Ltd on 6 May, 2004, also held that Trademark law is applicable to Domain Names as well and laid down the following principles, which all weigh in favor of the Complainant:
8.  The passing off action is normally available to the owner of a distinctive trademark and the person who, if the word or name is an invented one, invents and uses it. If two trade rivals claim to have individually invented the same mark, then the trader who is able to establish prior user will succeed.
9. What has to be established is the likelihood of confusion in the minds of the public, that the goods or services offered by the defendant are the goods or the services of the plaintiff. In assessing the likelihood of such confusion the courts must allow for the “imperfect recollection of a person of ordinary memory”.
10. Ordinary consumers/users seeking to locate the functions available under one domain name may be confused if they accidentally arrived at a different but similar web site which offers no such services. Such users could well conclude that the first domain name owner had misrepresented its goods or services through its promotional activities and the first domain owner would thereby lose their customers. It is apparent therefore that a domain name may have all the characteristics of a trademark and could found an action for passing off.
11. That whereas the Respondent submits that it is a settled proposition of law that words or phrases which describe the character of a proprietor’s goods or services cannot be monopolized by a single person. Further, claims HuntNews as coined word of two generic words, which when together mean ‘news will be diligently and eagerly searched for’, provides dictionary meaning for two terms as Annexures. Also compares the same with general words like NewsHawk and NewsHound. But on searching online oxford dictionary, the word NewsHunt or HuntNews as a whole cannot be located, while dictionary does contain words like NewsHawk and NewsHound. It can be safely assumed that Complainant has deliberately selected a non-dictionary word as its domain and subsequently as the mark.
12. Hon’ble Delhi high Court in the matter of Living Media India Limited vs Jitender V. Jain And Anr. on 21 May, 2002 [98 (2002) DLT 430], held that the word “AAJ” and “TAK” may be individually descriptive and dictionary word and may not be monopolised by any person but their combination does provide a protection as a trademark if it has been in long, prior and continuous user in relation to particular goods manufactured, sold by a particular person and by virtue of such user the mark gets identified with that person. It is so irrespective of the fact whether such a combination is descriptive in nature and has even a dictionary meaning. In such a case any other person may choose any of the two words viz. either “AAJ” or “TAK” as its trade name or mark but it has to prohibited from using the combination of these words as such a user not only creates confusion as to its source or origin but also bares the design or motive of its subsequent adopter.
13. In the matter of Times Internet Ltd vs Jonathan S. And Another on 17 April, 2012 [CS(OS) 1742/2007], Hon’ble Delhi High Court upheld that the evidence on record would also show that the name/trade mark Indiatimes has been associated with the plaintiff exclusively on account of its user, reputation, goodwill, product services and marketing and mere mentioning of indiatimes immediately signifies the services and products marketed by the plaintiff through its e-commerce website www.indiatimes.com and accordingly, none else has the right to use the said name/mark indiatimes which is completely identified with the plaintiff. Even otherwise the name/mark indiatimes has no dictionary meaning, it is a coined word, created, invented and developed by M/s. Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd. and, thus, it is entitled to the highest level of protection. It seems that the registration of domain name by defendant no.1 is without any authorisation, permission or license from the plaintiff and the registration is illegal without ulterior motives with a view to encash upon the reputation of the plaintiff.
14. The tests for comparison of the two word-marks were formulated by Lord Parker in Planotist Co. Ltd.’s application (1906) 23 RPC 774 as follows : “You must take the two words. You must judge of them, both by their look and by their sound. You must consider the goods to which they are to be applied. You must consider the nature and kind of customer who would be likely to buy those goods. In fact, you must consider all the surrounding circumstances; and you must further consider what is likely to happen if each of those trade marks is used in a normal way as a trade mark for the goods of the respective owners of the marks. If, considering all those circumstances, you come to the conclusion that there will be a confusion — that is to say, not necessarily that one man will be injured and the other will gain illicit benefit, but that there will be a confusion in the mind of the public which will lead to confusion in the goods — then you may refuse the registration, or rather you must refuse the registration in that case.”
15. Further, the Respondent claims that the conjunctive use of the terms “Hunt” and “News” is common to the trade for websites providing news reporting services and provides a list of 17 websites in support as an Annexure, but on scanning of WHOIS/Creation Date of these domain names by the Arbitrator, only one domain www.huntnews.net was registered in 2001, while none of other 16 domain names have Creation Date before the Complainant started using the mark NewsHunt in it’s domain name. Most of the provided domain names are parked with negligible use, as pointed out by Complainant as well. The following table includes registration date of these domains along with the other three relevant domain names NewsHunt.com, NewsHunt.in, HuntNews.in in the order of date of registration:
    

    	Domain Name	Date of Registration
    1	huntnews.net	27 March 2001
    2	Newshunt.com – Complainant	05 August 2002
    3	Newshunt.in – Complainant	08 October 2008
    4	huntnews.com	28 May 2009
    5	huntnewsnu.com	28 January 2010
    6	newshunt.net	19 April 2011
    7	newshunt.co	17 May 2013
    8	newspaperhunt.com	28 November 2013
    9	news-hunt.com	18 September 2014
    10	newshunt.news	15 July 2015
    11	Huntnews.in – Respondent	21 July 2015
    12	newshunt.xyz	15 August 2015
    13	newshunt.cn	1 November 2015
    14	newshunt.com.cn	1 November 2015
    15	newshunt.online	25 December 2016
    16	newshunt.org	1 January 2016
    17	newshunt.top	18 January 2016
    18	newsonhunt.com	1 Feb 2016
    19	newshunt.biz	25 March 2016
    20	newshunt.info	28 March 2016

16. Even the domain name HuntNews.net, registered in 2001, talks about news from a US county named HUNT, located in the state of Texas, USA and does not use the words ‘Hunt News’ in their descriptive sense. That implies, the Complainant has been the first to use the combination of two descriptive words ‘News’ and ‘Hunt’ as NewsHunt in an ecommerce business with proper protection of its intellectual protected rights.
17. The trend of Date of Registration of above Domain Names show that as the Complainant’s mark is acquired substantial fame, many more domains with the said keywords have been registered by third parties, majority of them in the last one year alone including that of Respondent.
18. Further, Complainant submits that the 17 URLs referred by the Respondent containing keywords NewsHunt or otherwise, the majority of domains are merely parked with negligible use and also intends to initiate stringent legal action against any of the infringing entities. Complainant also has submitted a list along with rejoinder to which takedown notice has been served by them in the past. Though, in any case, Honorable Delhi High Court, in the matter of Info Edge (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs Shailesh Gupta [98 (2002) DLT 499] has laid down: “the plaintiff… cannot be denied relief and an injunction only because it has not proceeded against other similar names. As a matter of fact, when action is initiated, one similar domain name has to be always the first and that cannot be the reason for denying injunction to the plaintiff”.
19. Further, the Respondent has raised the issue as to whether the Complainant’s mark NewsHunt, which is a combination of two generic words and describes the character of a Complainant’s services has acquired a secondary meaning, to give them the exclusive right to use the said mark, which they admit is an exception for any descriptive Trademark. The said ‘secondary meaning’ has been considered in the recent INDRP matter of Girnar Software Pvt Ltd V Manisha Enterprises [INDRP/712 – Gaadi.in] wherein ‘Gaadi.com’ was already registered as a Trademark since 2010 in favor of the Complainant. It was held that a word/mark is suggestive if it requires imagination, thought, reasoning process and perception to reach a conclusion as to the nature of the services involved while in the case of descriptive trademark to reach such a conclusion is immediate and instant. While the basic difference between a descriptive mark and a generic mark is that a descriptive mark describes the services/goods while a generic mark names the particular service/goods involved. The word/mark ‘Gaadi’ is descriptive in relation to the services involved. It is well settled law that the descriptive words/marks can be protected only on their acquisition of secondary significance for the consuming public.
20. “Secondary Meaning” has been aptly defined in the case of Charcoal Steak House of Charlotte, Inc. v. Staley, 263 N.C. 199, 139 S.E.2nd 185, 144 USPQ 241 (1964) as “When a particular business has used words public juris for so long or so exclusively or when it has promoted its product to such an extent that the words do not register their literal meaning on the public mind but are instantly associated with one enterprise, such words have attained a secondary meaning. This is to say, a secondary meaning exists when, in addition to their literal, or dictionary, meaning, words connote to the public a product from a unique source.”
21. In the matter of AOL LLC v. DiMarco, FA 1275978 (Forum Sept. 9, 2009) ‘Secondary meaning’ is acquired when ‘in the minds of the public, the primary significance of a product feature… is to identify the source of the product rather than the product itself.’ As per UDRP consensus view 2.0, relevant evidence of such “secondary meaning” includes length and amount of sales under the trademark, the nature and extent of advertising, consumer surveys, media recognition and so on.
22. Whether a particular descriptive word/mark has attained secondary significance and consequently be protected is a question of fact to be determined from the peculiar facts of the each case and from the relevant evidence probative of probable customer reaction. The onus and burden of proof being upon the Complainant. [National Shoe Stores Co. V. National Shoes of New York, Inc., 113 USPQ 380 (1957)]
23. The Complainant has submitted that the services under the mark NewsHunt is available internationally and that the complainant offers access to hundreds of Newspapers in numerous languages. Moreover, the complainant’s mobile application under the mark NewsHunt has been downloaded more than 10,000,000 (Ten Million / 1 crore) times through the Google Play Store, which is visible in Google Play Store. The Media Coverage is evident and it has presence in other countries as well, while some Analytics as to Google Searches has also been annexed by the Complainant depicting growth of various Complainant’s marks in terms of Google search from May 2015 till May 2016.
24. The complainant claims to hold the largest market share among similar services arising from India with over 20 million monthly active users and over 2.5 billion page views monthly, which have been discussed in some of the media reports as well like EconomicTimes.com dated July 2015 reads “NewsHunt has 20 million monthly active users accessing mobile Internet in regional languages such as Tamil, Bengali and Telugu. The platform gets at least 2.5 billion page views a month. ”. The above reports are enough to prove the popularity / recognition it has received.
25. Importantly, Honorable Delhi High Court, in the matter of Info Edge (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs Shailesh Gupta [98 (2002) DLT 499] has laid down the following principles in respect of “Secondary Meaning”, which again support Complainant’s case:
26. It is a settled law that the distinction between the generic word and descriptive word is very thin and such word could also assume a secondary meaning by its long user by a person, who establishes his reputation in the market.
27. The nature of reputation and goodwill that the plaintiff has been able to generate in the market by adopting and establishing a domain name and carrying on their business activities on the basis of the same. Thereby the trademark/domain name of the plaintiff has assumed significance and a secondary meaning.
28. In McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition Vol. 2 3rd Edition in para 12.5 (2) it is stated that in order to obtain some form of relief on a “passing off” claim, the user of a generic term must prove some false or confusing usage by the newcomer above and beyond mere use of generic name.
29. In a matter where services rendered through domain name in the internet, a very alert vigil is necessary and a strict view is to be taken for its each access and reach by anyone from any corner of the globe… It is settled law that if two contesting parties are involved in the same area or similar line of business, there is grave and immense possibility for confusion and deception.
30. The Complainant’s services were launched in 2009. It is available in India as well as internationally including India, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, UAE and Africa, under its mark NewsHunt, while Respondent registered the disputed domain only in July 2015. The Complainant offers access to hundreds of Newspapers in many different languages and publishes digital versions of various news magazine. The same is both available over the website http://m.dailyhunt.in and also as a Mobile Application on various Mobile Platforms, with more than 10 million downloads in Google Play Store alone till date. Further, the Complainant’s services under the mark NewsHunt has the largest market share among similar services with over 20 million monthly active users and over 2.5 billion page views monthly. Moreover, there has been no bona-fide or legitimate use by the Respondent, as proved under further clauses. Therefore, given the facts, recognition and accolades it has received, it can be concluded Complainant’s mark has definitely acquired secondary meaning over the period of over 7 years, starting 2009.
31. Further, Complainant submits that due to complainant’s continuous use and extensive promotional activities since February 2009, the mark NewsHunt has acquired secondary meaning among the public and even qualifies to be called as a well-known mark under the provisions of the Indian Trademark Act. Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the matter of M/S. Hindustan Pencils Pvt. Ltd. vs M/S. India Stationery Products [on 23 January, 1989], held that:
    “It is no doubt true that trade mark copyright or a patent belongs to a registered owner and, in that sense, is his monopoly because he has the exclusive right to use the same. Nevertheless, especially as far as trade marks are concerned, the said mark is also meant to distinguish the goods of the owner of the mark from that of the other manufacturers. This distinguishing mark is primarily, probably solely, for the benefit of the consumer. A trade mark is a representation by the owner to the consumer informing him that the goods in question bearing a particular trade mark have been manufactured or marketed by the owner of the mark. With the passage of time, if the goods are of good quality and become popular, the trade mark becomes well known. People buy the goods after seeing the trade mark which is applied to them. Especially in Third World Countries, where level of education is not very high and where the consumer may not be proficient enough to read what is written, possibly in a language which is unknown to the purchaser, the trade mark assumes greater significance. It is the duty of the Courts to protect the interest of such unwary customers. It is for the Court to see that an unscrupulous infringe does not cheat the general public by selling spurious goods by using trade marks which do not belong to him and which are associated with goods of repute.”
32. Further, in support, the Complainant provides many UDRP decisions of WIPO/NAF in support, wherein it was held that mere inverting terms in a mark is not sufficient to dispel consumer confusion. They all used the same words of the mark in the domain name but in different order only:
    

    UDRP Case	Domain Name	Trade Mark
    Reed Elsevier Inc. v. Weekly Publishers [Claim No FA0303000151536]	<weeklypublishers.com>	PUBLISHERS WEEKLY
    Dollar Rent A Car, Inc. v. Rob Smith d/b/a Ameriasa [Claim No FA0404000257706]	<dollar-car-rental.org>	DOLLAR RENT A CAR
    Toyota of El Cajon v. Toyota of El Cajon [Claim No FA0605000712323]	<ElcajonToyota.com>	TOYOTA OF EL CAJON
    Lifetouch, Inc. v. Schools online Inc [Claim No FA0501000399497]	<SchoolPortraitsLifeTouch.com>	LIFETOUCH SCHOOL PORTRAITS
    NCRAS Management, LP v. Cupcake City and John Zuccarini [Case No. D2000-1803]	<nationalrentalcar.com>	NATIONAL CAR RENTAL
    Pearl Jam, A General Partnership v. Peter Lyn c/o JamPearl Limited [Claim No FA0312000221238]	<jampearl.com>	PEARL JAM
    Playboy Enterprises V Saeid Yomtobian dba Movie Name Company [WIPO Case No D2001-1201]	<ChannelPlaybBoy.com>	PlayBoyChannel
    The Neiman Marcus Group, Inc. and NM Nevada Trust v. Dewey Mackay DBA PMA media group [NAF Claim No FA0610000813531]	<marcusneimanstyle.info>	NEIMAN MARCUS
    Victoria’s Secret Stores Brand Management, Inc. v. Purple Bucquet / Purple [Claim No FA1012001363116]	<pinkvictoriassecret.com>	VICTORIA’S SECRET PINK
    Toronto Convention & Visitors Assn. v. This Domain is For Sale, [D2001-1463]	tourism-tornoto.com	TORONTO TOURISM
    CV Underground, LLC v. Gulf South Ltd [Claim FA 116732]	<atlantaunderground.com>	UNDERGROUND ATLANTA
    Caviar Volga v. Blankert Consultancy BV [Case No. D2010-2159]	<volgacaviar.com>	CAVIAR VOLGA
    Société des Bains de Mer et du Cercle des Etrangers à Monaco v. Mark Bolet – Case No. D2006-1245	<monaconetcasino.com>	CASINO DE MONACO

33. In the matter of Pearl Jam, A General Partnership v. Peter Lyn c/o JamPearl Limited [NAF Claim Number: FA0312000221238], it was held that merely transposing the elements of the mark, such as here, does not avoid confusing similarity under the Policy. See NCRAS Mgmt., LP v. Cupcake City, D2000-1803 (WIPO Feb. 26, 2001) (finding the domain name <nationalrentalcar.com> confusingly similar to the mark NATIONAL CAR RENTAL and finding that merely inverting the terms of a mark is insufficient to dispel consumer confusion because the mark and the resulting domain name are simply too similar to each other); see also Playboy Enters. v. Movie Name Co., D2001-1201 (WIPO Feb. 26, 2002) (finding the domain name <channelplayboy.com> confusingly similar to the mark THE PLAYBOY CHANNEL); see also Toronto Convention & Visitors Ass’n v. This Domain is For Sale, D2001-1463 (WIPO Feb. 25, 2002) (finding that there would be no reason to distinguish between <tourismtoronto.com> and TORONTO TOURISM).On the other hand, Respondent places reliance in the matter of Marico Ltd V. Agro Tech Foods, FAO (OS) No 352/2010, but the said matter is not applicable here:Where the issue was as to use of the mark “Low Absorb”, which never acquired a Secondary Meaning. The Honorable Supreme Court said there are no survey reports of the consumers or any other evidence which would even prima facie point to the fact that <LOW ABSORB> has attained secondary distinctive meaning of a standard which has the ability to source the origin of the goods to the plaintiff.Further Court held that there can be no dispute that even a descriptive word can be used as a trade mark provided it becomes – well known & acquires secondary distinctive meaning.The test is of likelihood of deception and not as to whether there was any intent to deceive. A perusal of the rival labels clearly demonstrate that except for the usage of the words… there is no commonality between the two. The colour scheme, the font, the trade dress and get up is completely different… Therefore, Court said prima facie, in my opinion, there is no case even for passing off made out.Respondent also places reliance in the matter of Campina Melkunie V Benelux referred as UDRP Case No 265/00, but on searching the UDRP Cases, no matter with the Plaintiff name as Campina Melkunie could be located and further WIPO Case no D2000-0265 is titled Sporoptic Pouilloux S.A. V. William H. Wilson, not applicable here, therefore could not be considered.Furthermore, the Para 3 of the INDRP Policy, includes the Registrant’s Representations, which states under clause (b) that by applying to register a domain name, or by asking a Registrar to maintain or renew a domain name registration, the Registrant represents and warrants that to the Registrant’s knowledge, the registration of the domain name will not infringe upon or otherwise violate the rights of any third party and the Registrant will not knowingly use the domain name in violation of any applicable laws or regulations.
34. Therefore, aforesaid Para 3 of the INDRP Policy, bestows upon the Domain Registrant that he will not infringe upon or otherwise violate the rights of any third party. Given the Respondent’s claim to be a company working with technology and e-commerce companies across industries and further states as been lauded for their term’s decades worth of experience in start-ups and global expertise in such matters. It is not acceptable that Respondent did not have knowledge of Complainant’s aforesaid Technology/E-commerce venture, as a simple Google search could have revealed the existence of Complainant’s mark.
35. The Respondent’s services under the disputed domain <huntnews.in> is identical and/or exactly similar to the services offered by the Complainant under its mark NewsHunt, which is proved by the fact that the website at disputed domain <huntnews.in>, offers to select language either Hindi or English and only offers mobile version of the website with low resolution pictures. Similarly, the Complainant’s website at http://m.dailyhunt.in (previously at http://m.newshunt.com) offers to select any of 14 languages including English, Nepali, Hindi, Udru, etc and is mobile friendly version of the website only. Above all, as analyzed under further clauses the Respondent has copied content from various sources including that of Complainant. It proves, that the Respondent is merely trying to take undue advantage of the goodwill of the Complainant’s trademark by using the confusingly similar domain name <huntnews.in>.
36.  In the matter of Nikon, Inc. v. Technilab, Inc, [WIPO Case No D2000-1774] and Magnum Piering, Inc. v. Mudjackers & Wilson, [WIPO Case No D2000-1525], it was held that holding that confusing similarity under the Policy is decided upon the inclusion of a trademark in the domain name. That is, The registration and the use of the confusingly similar impugned domain is a direct infringement of the legitimate rights held by the Complainant of the mark NewsHunt. In the matter of F. Hofmann. Laroche AG v. Relish Enterprises, [WIPO Case No D2007-1629], where it was held that, if the Complainant owns a registered Trademark then it satisfies the threshold requirement of having the Trademark rights and the Domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s Trademark because disputed Domain Name looks and reads like Complainant’s Trademark.
37.  In the matter of Rohtas Goel And Anr. vs Somay Nayak And Ors. on 29 October, 2010 [CS(OS) 1108/2006], Hon’ble Delhi High Court laid down that “A person is well within his right to sell his goods or render services using any trade name for the purpose. With the passage of time the goods sold or the services rendered by him, as the case may be, may acquire certain reputation or goodwill in the market which becomes the property of that person and needs to be protected by the court. It is not permissible for any other person to start selling goods or rendering services either using the same name or imitating that name so as to cause injury to that person and enrich himself at the cost of the person who had already been using that name and had acquired a certain reputation with the passage of time and on account of the quality of the goods sold or services rendered by him. Any attempt on the part of a person to enrich upon the goodwill generated by any other person needs to be curbed by the court whenever approached by the aggrieved party in this regard.”
38. In the circumstances, the Arbitrator concludes that the Complainant has established the requirement of paragraph 4 (i) of the Policy i.e. the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the mark in which Complainant has rights.