INDRP - IN Domain Disputes

  • Home
  • INDRP
  • Pending
  • Hall of Fame
  • UDRP
  • FAQs
  • Contact
You are here: Home / INDRP / TAMO.in ruled in favor of TATA MOTORS in INDRP Proceedings

TAMO.in ruled in favor of TATA MOTORS in INDRP Proceedings

January 16, 2018 by Domain Lawyer Leave a Comment

TATA MOTORS Limited V. Shay Rahman
Disputed Domain: TAMO.in

Facts:

The Complainant is India’s largest automobile company, with consolidated revenues of Rs 2,75,561 Crores in 2015 -16. The Complainant is the India’s market leader in commercial vehicles and among top three in passenger vehicles. Complainant launched its brand new sub-brand TAMO, an incubating center of innovation working towards new technologies, business models and partnerships in order to define future mobility solutions.

Further that the RACEMO, a 2-seater concept is the first innovation from TAMO and an emotional, unexpected leap to the future symbolizing the change that is taking place at TATA MOTORS. It further claims that it has registered its Trademark TAMO and its variant which is distinctive and has an established reputation both in India and internationally. Complainant advertised the mark TAMO in mass media such as print, electronic media and also through participation in motor shows, etc. The TAMO had extensive reviews on various online platforms such as QUIKR since 2016.

Complainant:

The complainant claims the Respondent has no right or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name TAMO.in. The Respondent has wrongfully and fraudulently adopted and registered the impugned domain name www.tamo.in in order to utilize the name and reputation without having any rights thereto and in spite of having full knowledge of the Complainant’s iconic stature in India and Internationally. Further, Respondent is trying to en-cash on the goodwill and reputation associated with the Trade mark TAMO, although the Respondent has no connection with the complainant and the other TATA Group of Companies.

Complainant also claimed that inaction in the use of Domain Name is within the concept of ‘BAD FAITH’ is supported. Further, the Complainant claims that the domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Complainant further claims that, the Respondent exemplifies a habitual “Cyber Squatter” engaged in a pattern and practice of registering and using bad faith domain name. Moreover, the Respondent has offering the domain name for sale.

The Disputed Domain Name clearly incorporates Complainants trade mark TAMO in its entirely and such use of the disputed domain name is considered evidence of bad faith registration and use, under the ‘UDRP’.

Respondent:

Respondent claims that the Domain Name is acquired from a Dictionary word “TAMO” and it also has a generic meaning in Buddhism. As well as, there are several companies around the world in their domain name (ex: tamo.com, tamo.co.uk are two different companies)This is not a made-up word (as its being done when combining Tata and Motors). The Respondent further claims that the word “TAMO” is not commonly associated with the Complainant’s brand.

The Respondent claims that, the Domain Name was created before the Trademark application date of the Complainant. Therefore, this Domain Name was not registered in any form of Bad Faith.

The Respondent claims that :”UNDEVELOPED.COM” is a passive sales page where anyone an hold a domain name, when it is not yet developed. It allows the Respondent to gauge the market, see visitor analytics and receive communications. Further, the Respondent claims, that it is unreasonable to accuse the Respondent for Bad Faith just because the Respondent is the owner and has not regulations / rules saying that he cannot sell a Domain Name for sale page that has no reference to anything related to the Complainant’s brand.

The Respondent claimed that all Annexes are inappropriate as refer to events post registration of the Domain Name www.TAMO.in. Further, screenshots as to Google Results are geo-location based, it hows location of Complainant’s attorney,while Respondent is located in UK.

INDRP Decision:

I. Similarity to the Trademark
The filing of Trademark Applications by the Complainant upheld as valid in support of Trademark. Also Complainant owning similar TAMO.co.in, though it registered 3-4 months after the Respondent, held in favor of the Complainant.

II. Legitimate Interest
Held that Domain being parked, the Respondent doesn’t have any legitimate interest, no weight given to the generic nature of the Domain Name. Further, Arbitrator states that Respondent hasn’t provided any evidence to substantiate it is commonly known by the disputed domain name or the Respondent actually engages in any business or commerce under the name “TAMO”. Therefore second element of the INDRP held as proved !

III. Bad Faith
The inaction / passive holding and also demand by the Respondent from Complainant has been upheld as Bad Faith.

The date of Registration of the Domain Name whih pre-dates Trademark Registration has been taken into account only to analyze that Domain Name has not been registered in Bad Faith. But use of the Domain Name has been upheld as Bad Faith, which is enough to prove the third element of the INDRP.

Accordingly, the Domain Name has been ordered to be transferred by the Arbitrator and no orders as to costs.

Our Opinion: We think the Respondent had legitimate rights to hold the domain name, as not only registration of disputed domain name Tamo.in predated TAMO.co.in but also before any application was moved before the Trademark Registry or any publicity for done for TAMO (pending) mark of the complainant. Above all, TAMO mark never has been registered and has a generic meaning as well… similar things have been upheld in UDRP decisions, where even when the domain was offered for sale. 

The only thing Respondent defense lacked was that he did not use any UDRP precedents to support the facts of the case, which could only have helped in the given circumstance and it is always advisable to sought help of some legal professional/expert or get in touch with us for basic Free Guidance in such matters !

Similar Posts:

  • .IN Domain Name Lens.in registration cancelled under INDRP proceedings
  • ThoughtWorks.in INDRP complaint dismissed on all counts
  • Ackoinsurance.in ordered to be transferred (Response Filed)
  • Rollsroycemotors.in transferred away in INDRP
  • Domain Dispute filed against ePolicyBazaar.in under INDRP

Filed Under: INDRP

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Keep up with he latest on Domain Name Disputes. Sign up with your email address to receive updates !

Popular Posts

Mozilla files for Firefox Domains .IN Domain Dispute Resolution Policy

Posted on April 11, 2015
01

Hotel Chain files for Domain Dispute against ParkPlaza.in

Posted on March 18, 2015
02

Breitling SA files twin Domain Disputes under INDRP

Posted on March 30, 2015
03

Mont Blanc files for INDRP, both for .in and .co.in domains

Posted on May 18, 2015
04
lens.in domain dispute

INDRP filed against in-use Generic Domain Lens.in

Posted on April 19, 2015
05

Random Posts

New INDRP Arbitrators Appointed

The number of Arbitrators was 15 until September 2014 and the fees charged for INDRP matter was Rs … [Read More...]

INDRP Decisions 2014

INDRP/555 Newaysindia.in Tuesday, January 7, … [Read More...]

Legal Panel Discussion on Domain Disputes @ DomainX 2014

… [Read More...]

Domain Dispute filed against Mahindra.in under INDRP

Mahindra Group has filed for a Domain Dispute against domain name Mahindra.in with Nixi/.In Registry … [Read More...]

JaguarLandRover.co.in Decision

In the matter of JaguarLandRover.co.in, the Domain has been ordered to be transferred to the … [Read More...]

Contact Us

Please visit here to contact and we would try to get in touch with you, as soon as possible. Thanks !

What’s New !

  • INDRP/1154 – Disputed Domain Name Decision: Chuckecheese.in (Transfer)
  • INDRP/1124 – Disputed Domain Name Decision: SiteGround.in (Transfer)
  • INDRP/1135 – Disputed Domain Name Decision: IEEE.in (Transfer)
  • INDRP/1132 – Disputed Domain Name Decision: Aprilia.in (Transfer)
  • INDRP/1114 – Disputed Domain Name Decision: Akelius.co.in (Transfer)
  • INDRP/1115 – Disputed Domain Name Decision: HRDGOINDIGO.IN (Transfer)
  • INDRP/1136 – Disputed Domain Name Decision: Bira91.in (Transfer)

Social

Domain Disputes
Domain Disputes

British company PokerStars is an online poker cardroom owned by Rational Intellectual Holdings Ltd. It filed INDRP over domain name StarPoker.in in 2017 but the Complaint was denied. Therefore, the British Company went into appeal and had re-initiated another INDRP in 2018, after the previous INDRP award was set aside... ... See MoreSee Less

View on Facebook
·Share

Share on FacebookShare on TwitterShare on Linked InShare by Email

Domain Disputes
Domain Disputes

While Idea Cellular Ltd and Vodafone Plc were negotiating merger, Vodafone filed for Domain Name Dispute over VodafineIdea.in and just grabbed a month before they announced completion of the USD 23.2 billion (approximately Rs 1.6 lakh crore) merger. The merged entity, will be known as Vodafone Idea Ltd. ... See MoreSee Less

View on Facebook
·Share

Share on FacebookShare on TwitterShare on Linked InShare by Email

Domain Disputes
Domain Disputes

It is interesting to see that from 2006 till 2014, only 6 INDRP complaints were denied but with 15 new Arbitrators brought on the panel by .IN Registry / NIXI in October - November 2014. We can observe major shift in the quality of decisions since 2015 onwards:

2015: 3 complaints denied
2016: 3 complaints denied
2017: 4 complaints denied
2018: 3 complaints denied so far this year !
... See MoreSee Less

View on Facebook
·Share

Share on FacebookShare on TwitterShare on Linked InShare by Email

Copyright © 2019 All Rights Reserved · INDRP.com · Disclaimer · Log in

Disclaimer: This website is not affiliated to .IN Registry / NIXI and the sole purpose is to spread knowledge about the Domain Dispute policy, INDRP decisions and it's process !
  • Home
  • INDRP
  • Pending
  • Hall of Fame
  • UDRP
  • FAQs
  • Contact