THE NATIONAL INTERNET EXCHANGE OF INDIA [NIXI]
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Eterno Infotech Pvt. Ltd. V Zheng Wei <www.HuntNews.in>
SOLE ARBITRATOR: ANKUR RAHEJA, FCS LLB MCA
Dispute Domain Name: HuntNews.in
- Arbitrator received an email, inquirying if Nixi can avail of its services as an arbitrator for the dispute pertaining to the domain name <huntnews.in>. Arbitrator confirmed availability and sent the signed Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and independence as required by rules.
- The .IN Registry appointed Ankur Raheja as the sole Arbitrator on 31 March 2016 and Arbitrator received the hard copy of the Complaint along with Annexures on 01 April, 2016.
- Arbitral Proceedings commenced on 4 April 2016 by issue of a notice by the Arbitrator by email to the Respondent email IDs – email@example.com and firstname.lastname@example.org, directing Respondent to file his response to the Complaint by 20 April 2016, which was successfully delivered on the WHOIS Email ID email@example.com. But in terms of INDRP rules, the email was also additionally marked to firstname.lastname@example.org.
- In the said notice, additionally, the Complainant was requested to provide soft copy of the Complaint to the Respondent to expedite the proceedings, which was duly complied with on 04th April 2016 itself. Also, the hard copy of the Complaint that was already dispatched by Nixi on 31 March 2016 and was duly delivered on the WHOIS address on 04 April 2016, as per the online delivery report.
- That the Respondent failed to file any response to the said timeline of 20 April 2016, therefore a new timeline was provided for filing of the Response as 28th April, 2016 to the Respondent by service of notice reminder on WHOIS email ID and email@example.com.
- The Respondent failed again to respond to the said INDRP complaint or notices thereof, therefore, in default in terms of Rule 11 of INDRP Rules of Procedure, matter was ordered to be proceeded ex-parte on Friday, 29 April 2016, in terms of INDRP rules.
- That on Tuesday, the 03 May 2016, the Respondent’s Representative tried to contact Nixi and asking for status of the proceeding. The request was forwarded to the Arbitrator but the permission was denied due to the reasons that though all the proceedings were marked to the Respondent but still the so called Representative showed ignorance as to the proceedings and further, no authority was produced or proved, in any case, by the said Representative.
- That later on 10 May 2016, the said Representative took proper route and emailed again giving reasons for delay in responding and with a request to allow a final opportunity to respond, claiming the disputed domain name in no manner infringes upon the Complainant’s domain name or trademark. And said Representative was asked by the Arbitrator to produce proper Power of Attorney, which was provided on 13 May 2016.
- That on 14th May 2016, the Complainant was provided an opportunity to respond to the Respondent’s request by 17 May 2016, but they fail to file any response/objections even till late on 18 May 2016, and it seemed appropriate, in the interest of justice, to provide a final opportunity to the Respondent to respond to the Complaint and the same was granted subject to payment of costs of Rs 5,000/-.
- Though only later, on 19 May 2016, after an opportunity was already provided to the Respondent, the Complainant issued objections, However, since Respondent were already afforded an opportunity in the interest of justice, therefore the objections on this ground could not be entertained.
- The Response was filed on 25 May 2016, and the Respondent was willing to pay for costs of Rs 5,000 but Complainant’s representative could not provide details as to the name in which the cheque should be issued even after reminders till 31 May 2016, citing the reason of non-availability of the concerned person at the Complainant Company, and assuring to make available the information at the earliest.
- Therefore, matter was proceeded further and on 31st May 2016 itself, the Complainant was provided an opportunity to file a rejoinder by 7 June 2016. The rejoinder was filed in time by the Complainant and also they provided the details for payment of costs ordered.
- Further, the parties were asked to file Written Arguments by 15 June 2016, which were compiled within the timeline by both the Complainant and the Respondent.
- The costs of Rs 5,000 were sent by the Respondent vide a cheque through bluedart courier on 27th June 2016, and delivered to the Complainant on 28th June 2016, as per online delivery report.
- Due to the Respondent’s late intervention in these INDRP proceedings on 10 May 2016 seeking opportunity to respond, the 60 days timeline for INDRP decision (from the date of commencement of Proceedings i.e. 04 April 2016) had to be extended by another 30 days in terms of Para 5(c) of INDRP rules of procedure. And the procedural formalities continued till 15 June 2016, when the written arguments were submitted by the parties. The extended 30 days period were to end on 02 July 2016 in terms of Para 4(c) of INDRP Rules of Procedure.
- Personal hearing was requested by the Respondent on 21 June 2016, i.e. after 6 days of filing of Written Arguments but no hearing was granted not only due to the approaching (extended) timeline but Arbitrator also felt there were no exceptional circumstances in terms of Rule 10 of the INDRP Rules of Procedure to grant a personal hearing.
- The language of these proceedings is in English.