The Complainant is M/s Thoughtworls Inc., 25th Floor, 200 East Randolph, Chicago, IL 60661, United States of America
The Respondent is Super Software Pvt Ltd, AI – 93, 9th Main Road, Anna Nagar, Chennai – 600040, Tamil Nadu
Disputed Domain Name was ThoughWorks.in.
The Complaint has been dismissed under the Arbitration proceedings as learned Arbitrator found lack of supporting evidence on behalf of the Complaint. Which is quoted as “the Complainant does not specifically indicate the services and/or products provided by the Complainant. It also does not indicate the services and/or products provided by the Complainant. It also does not indicate the year Complainant was incorporated, the State of its incorporation, the location or address of its registered/corporate office and nature of its activities.”
Though Complainant asserted that Trademark have been applied in India but only indicated the validity date but has omitted (i) to indicate the date of registration of the said Trademark or (ii) to submit a copy of the registration certificate along with the Complaint.
Respondent rightly contended, that they registered the Domain name in October 2014 but according to the WHOIS history for over a decade the Complainant was never the owner of the Domain Name. The Complainant never needed to secure this name for this period in order to protect their business is hard to believe. Further, it has been submitted that while the Domain was registered the said Trademarks were mostly under objection at the Trademark registry. The said facts have been suppressed by the Complainant and have not been mentioned indicating mala-fide intention.
Further, it has been held that there has been discrepancies in the details of the companies provided and the ownership of Trademark registered in India. Also it was claimed that the Trademark has been registered in various other countries such as Australia, Brazil, Hong Kong, Canada, India, etc but not even a single Trademark registration certificate has been annexed with the Complaint. As a result, it was held that first condition as to Trademark could not be satisfied !!!
Also the legitimate purpose of the Respondent has been upheld. And no Bad Faith could be proved as the Domain Name was freely available for three years till the Respondent registered the same and it was first registered in 2005 but Complainant made no efforts to secure the Domain Name.
In the light of the foregoing findings, there is no merit in the Complaint and is dismissed !!!
Complete judgment is available at: https://registry.in/system/files/thoughtworksin.pdf for download in PDF.
Leave a Reply