Decision

GoSecure Inc. is a Canadian based organization, established in 2003, providing security related solutions including predictive endpoint detection & response, next gen antivirus and so on. Whereas Mr. Billa Bhandari has a strong recognition in the International Bio-metrics community and a vast experience building business oriented, secure, scale-able and mission-critical trading systems in the banking industry, since last over 30 years. 

GoSecure Inc. filed a domain name disputed over generic domain name GoSecure.com claiming infringement of it’s registered Trademark rights and also went on to allege – Phishing attempts by Respondent, Passive Holding of Domain Name since Trademark registration in 2016. Also alleged that Respondent Repeatedly Renewed the Registration and Used the Domain in Bad Faith and based the same on further five grounds:

a) Respondent’s use of the at-issue trademark identical domain name to host email in furtherance of a phishing scheme aimed at defrauding third parties.
b) A request for a 5-figure payment in exchange for transferring the disputed domain name back to its rightful trademark owner is.
c) Respondent’s continued renewal of the domain in the absence of any content on the website for the past 10 years since 2011 constitutes bad faith use and registration.
d) Last five renewals of the registration from 2016-2020 were done after the GOSECURE Mark registered on June 28, 2016.
e) Respondent provided incomplete information when registering his domain name.

GoSecure.com domain had a registration date of September 14, 1999 and was legitimately used from 2002 till 2011 by the Respondent and even a Trademark registration was attempted. The Complainant Trademark got registered with USPTO in 2016 in USA and was having previous Canadian Trademarks but never disclosed in the Complaint. Further, the Complainant alleged phishing attempts being made by the Respondent, which they later backtracked under Additional Submissions.

There have been negotiation between the parties for $75k, while Complainant offered maximum of $10k and later came into UDRP.  Respondent even provided evidence as to future plans as to his another project VitalProbe Inc. in Dubai and using the term GoSecure in his new project as well.

The Panel upheld the legitimate interests the Respondent had as the emails were still in use and demonstrable preparations to use were evident as well. Further held this to be a matter of Reverse Domain Name hijacking and referred these proceedings as Complainant’s plan B, with an attempt to reverse domain hijacking, after a failed negotiation !

DECISION

GoSecure Inc. v. Billa Bhandari
Claim Number: FA2107001954083

PARTIES

Complainant is GoSecure Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Andrew Skale of Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C., California, USA.

Respondent is Billa Bhandari (“Respondent”), represented by Ankur Raheja of Cylaw Solutions, India.

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <gosecure.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.

PANEL

The undersigned certifies that they have acted independently and impartially and to the best of their knowledge have no known conflict in serving as Panelists in this proceeding.

Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq. (Chair), Gerald M. Levine, Ph.D., Esq., and Fernando Triana, Esq., as Panelists.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the FORUM electronically on July 7, 2021; the FORUM received payment on July 7, 2021.

On July 7, 2021, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the FORUM that the <gosecure.com> domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GoDaddy.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, LLC registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).

On July 8, 2021, the FORUM served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 2, 2021 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@gosecure.com. Also on July 8, 2021, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the e-mail addresses served and the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to Respondent via post
and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts.

A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on August 2, 2021.

On August 9, 2021, Respondent submitted to the Forum its objection to Complainant’s request for further submission. On August 10, 2021, Complainant filed an Additional Submission without permission from the Panel. On August 11, 2021, pursuant to Respondent’s request to have the dispute decided by a three-member Panel, the FORUM appointed Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq. (Chair), Gerald M. Levine, Ph.D., Esq., and Fernando Triana, Esq. as Panelists.

On August 16, 2021, Respondent filed an Additional Submission without permission from the Panel.

Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the FORUM has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") "to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent" through submission of Electronic and Written Notices, as defined in Rule 1 and Rule 2.

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

i) Complainant, GoSecure Inc., provides computer and data security goods and services. Complainant has rights in the GOSECURE mark based on registration of the mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 4,986,200, registered June 28, 2016). The disputed domain name is identical to Complainant’s GOSECURE mark because it simply adds the “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”).

ii) Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Additionally, Respondent does not use the disputed domain for any bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Respondent uses the disputed domain to send phishing emails and also fails to
make active use of the disputed domain as it does not have a resolving website.

iii) Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent offers to sell the domain at a price that exceeds registration costs. Additionally, Respondent uses the disputed domain name to send phishing emails. Furthermore, the disputed domain name has been inactive for the past 10 years. Respondent also failed to provide complete WHOIS information.
Respondent continued to renew the disputed domain name after Complainant’s GOSECURE mark was registered.

B. Respondent

i) Respondent is a well-known entrepreneur with experience in information security and privacy. Complainant has not established rights in the GOSECURE mark. Additionally, the disputed domain name consists of generic terms.

ii) Respondent has rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name since Respondent uses it for professional purposes and is commonly known by the domain name. Additionally, Respondent has never used the domain name for phishing and has plans to make active use of the domain. Furthermore, Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name predates Complainant’s claimed rights in the GOSECURE mark by 16 years.

(iii) Respondent does not deny that Complainant reached out to the GoDaddy domain broker service to attempt to purchase the disputed domain name or that Respondent refused to sell the disputed domain name “for anything less than a strong 6-figure(s).”

iv) Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in good faith. Respondent did not solicit the sale of the disputed domain name and has the right to sell the domain at whatever price it deems appropriate. Additionally, Complainant’s allegations of phishing are false. Furthermore, Respondent made active use of the disputed domain name for over a decade and has plans to make active use of the domain name again in the near future. Also, Respondent’s WHOIS information is not completely visible due to the requirements of the GDRP Policy. Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name predates Complainant’s rights in the GOSECURE mark and the renewal of the domain name is irrelevant.

(v) Complainant engages in reverse domain name hijacking.

C. Additional Submissions

Complainant’s Additional Submission

i) Respondent challenges Complainant’s rights in the GOSECURE mark by arguing that Complainant has a different address on the certificate of Registration than in this proceeding. USPTO’s record clearly shows that Complainant’s new address is the same as the address claimed here.

ii) The USPTO determined that the GOSECURE mark was not generic in determining that the mark should register on the principal register. As such, it is clear that Complainant has rights in the GOSECURE mark.

iii) Respondent did not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain because: (i) he was utilizing the <gosecure.com> domain to send phishing emails to Complainant’s customers, who then complained directly to Complainant; (ii) he has been passively holding the unused domain for over ten years; (iii) he is not known by the GOSECURE name and has not been using it in any other context.

iv) Respondent’s renewal and use of the disputed domain name have been in bad faith. The Complaint identified five separate bases for this finding, including:

(i) Respondent was engaging in a phishing scheme through use of the disputed domain;
(ii) Respondent demanded a five figure payment in exchange for transferring the domain;
(iii) Respondent continued to renew the domain in the absence of any content (passive holding);
(iv) five of these renewals occurred after Complainant’s GOSECURE mark was registered on the principal register; and
(v) Respondent provided incomplete information in the Whois registry.

v) There is no basis for a finding of reverse domain name hijacking.

Respondent’s Objection to Complainant’s Additional Submission Respondent objects to Complainant’s attempt to request for further submission, because it is not in compliance with established UDRP procedure respecting any additional filings, and also because it lamentably seeks to prejudice Respondent.

It has already been a week since the Response was filed. Moreover, under the Policy, parties have no right to submit additional arguments or evidence (Lloyds TSB Bank PLC v. Daniel Carmel-Brown, WIPO Case No. D2008-1889). Rule 12 of the UDRP Rules specifically states, that the UDRP process involves only a “Complaint” and a “Response”, with only the possibility of the Panel itself requesting further statements or documents from either of the parties:

The controlling provision is Paragraph 12 of ICANN’s Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), under which discretion to request such supplementation rests with the Panel”. A central purpose of the Policy and Rules is providing an expeditious and relatively inexpensive procedure for determining a certain type of domain name dispute, in which each party is entitled to make just one submission.

On August 16, 2021 Respondent filed an Additional Submission responding to specific contentions Complainant restates or repeats from the Complaint. The Panel has carefully reviewed both Additional Submissions. To the extent either responds to facts that it would not have been in a position to assert in the Complaint and Response the Panel has considered them in its determination.

FINDINGS

1. The disputed domain name was registered on September 14, 1999.

2. Complainant has established rights in the GOSECURE mark based on registration of the mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 4,986,200) registered June 28, 2016.

3. Respondent has established that it has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

4. As Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, the Panel has concluded that it is unnecessary to consider whether Respondent registered or is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.

5. Complainant has engaged in Reverse Domain Name Hijacking.

DISCUSSION

Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable."

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred:

(1) the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and

(2) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and

(3) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. Identical and/or Confusingly Similar Complainant asserts rights in the GOSECURE mark based on registration with
the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 4,986,200, registered June 28, 2016). Registration of a mark with the USPTO is a valid showing of rights in a mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Target Brands, Inc. v. jennifer beyer, FA 1738027 (FORUM July 31, 2017) ("Complainant has rights in its TARGET service mark for purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) by virtue of its registration of the mark with a national trademark authority, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”).”). Since Complainant provides evidence of registration of the GOSECURE mark with the USPTO, the
Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Complainant argues that the disputed domain name is identical to Complainant’s GOSECURE mark because it simply adds the “.com” gTLD. When a domain name differs from a mark only by the addition of a gTLD it may be found to be identical to the mark. See F.R. Burger & Associates, Inc. v. shanshan lin, FA 1623319 (FORUM July 9, 2015) (holding, “Respondent’s <frburger.com> domain name is identical to Complainant’s FRBURGER mark because it differs only by
the domain name’s addition of the top-level domain name “.com.”). Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the GOSECURE mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

While Respondent contends that the disputed domain name is comprised of common and generic terms and as such cannot be found to be identical to Complainant’s mark, the Panel finds that such a determination is not necessary under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) as this portion of the Policy considers only whether Complainant has rights in the mark and whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark. See Precious Puppies of Florida, Inc. v. kc, FA 1028247 (FORUM Aug. 10, 2007) (examining Respondent’s generic terms arguments only under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) and Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) and not under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)); see also Vitello v. Castello, FA 159460 (FORUM July 1, 2003) (finding that the respondent’s disputed domain name was identical to complainant’s mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), but later determining the issue of whether the disputed domain name was comprised of generic terms under Policy
¶¶ 4(a)(ii) and 4(a)(iii)).

Rights or Legitimate Interests

A complainant has the further burden of demonstrating for the second limb that respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain name. It can do this by offering prima facie proof of its contention on this issue. If it succeeds on a prima facie showing that a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests the burden then shifts to respondent to rebut the contention that it lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

Here Complainant contends that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in <gosecurity.com> because it does not now and has not for many years resolved to a website and Respondent is not presently making a bona fide offer of any goods or services through a resolving website. Additionally, it contends that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor is it using the disputed domain name for noncommercial or fair use purposes.

Complainant contends that it has not authorized Respondent to hold the disputed domain name.

Although Complainant concedes that its trademark postdates the registration of the disputed domain name, it contends that Respondent’s nonuse of <gosecurity.com> as a website and for the other reasons it advances Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Facts rebutting these contentions are, of course, within Respondent’s knowledge,
and not necessarily that of Complainant.

It is for this reason that a respondent must come forward with rebuttal evidence, and if it cannot then Complainant succeeds on this limb. Here, the Panel finds that Complainant’s contentions together with Respondent’s admissions that the domain name does not presently resolve to an active website are sufficient to state a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

Once the burden shifts, Respondent has the opportunity of demonstrating its right or legitimate interest by showing the existence of any of the following nonexclusive circumstances:

(i) before any notice to you [respondent] of the dispute, your use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or

(ii) you [respondent] (as an individual, business, or other organization) have been commonly known by the domain name, even if you have acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or

(iii) you [respondent] are making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue. The Panel notes that Respondent does not deny that the disputed domain name is currently inactive, although its proof does support the contention that for many years it was actively used. Rather, it contends that it has nonetheless continuously used the domain name for email operations. See Zero International Holding GmbH & Co. Kommanditgesellsshaft v. Beyonet Services and Stephen Urich, 2000-0161 (WIPO May 12, 2000) (“We do not accept that complainant’s contention that registration of a domain name which is only to be used for [e-mail and file transfer operations] is in some way improper and constitutes bad faith.”) Respondent additionally demonstrates that it maintains a “WordPress” blog at https://gosecure.wordpress.com and that it is presently developing a project for the website with another company located in UAE. The specifics of the project while sketchy are sufficiently spelled out in Respondent’s attachments. The Panel finds that this evidence supports Respondent’s assertion that it is making “demonstrable preparations to use” the domain name.

Respondent also contends that it was commonly known by the domain name for this extended period. It states and provides evidence that it is an established entrepreneur in the biometrics and information security field for the last 30 years.

It even sought trademark protection for “Go Secure” although did not proceed with the registration. This contention appears to be supported by the totality of evidence offered, but this is post-hoc. There is no evidence that the disputed domain name was acquired by Respondent operating with that name. The Panel finds that Respondent’s rebuttal and evidence is persuasive on the issue of rights and legitimate interests. Accordingly, Complainant has not succeeded on this element of the Policy.

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Where complainant fails to establish an element necessary for a finding of abusive domain name registration and use it is unnecessary to proceed further in analyzing the third limb of the Policy. Here, the Panel has found that Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. See Creative Curb v. Edgetec Int’l Pty. Ltd., FA 116765 (FORUM Sept. 20, 2002) (finding that because the complainant must prove all three elements under the Policy, the complainant’s failure to prove one of the elements makes further inquiry into the
remaining element unnecessary); also Netservice, Inc. v. Ryan Howard / Howard Technologies, Ltd., FA1721637 (FORUM Apr. 17, 2017).

Accordingly, Complainant has not succeeded in proving Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.

Reverse Domain Name Hijacking

Respondent alleges that Complainant has acted in bad faith and is engaging in reverse domain name hijacking by initiating this dispute. Complainant denies that there is any basis for a finding of reverse domain name hijacking.

Under Paragraph 1 of the Rules, "Reverse Domain Name Hijacking" (RDNH) is defined as "using the Policy in bad faith to attempt to deprive a registered domain-name holder of a domain name. “Paragraph 15(e) of the Rules provides that if "the Panel finds that the complaint was brought in bad faith, for example in an attempt at Reverse Domain Name Hijacking or was brought primarily to harass the domain-name holder, the Panel shall declare in its decision that the complaint was brought in bad faith and constitutes an abuse of the administrative proceeding.”

The Panel observes that such a finding is justified where a complainant proceeds despite the fact that it knew or should have known that it did not have a colorable claim under the Policy. See Karma International, LLC v. David Malaxos, FA 1822198 (FORUM Feb. 15, 2019) (finding RDNH where complainant lacked trademark rights, came into being long after domain name was registered, and had made prior unsolicited offer to purchase domain name). It also notes that even if a panel would find that Complainant has failed to satisfy its burden under the Policy, this does not necessarily render a finding of reverse domain name hijacking. See ECG European City Guide v. Woodell, FA 183897 (FORUM Oct. 14, 2003) (“Although the Panel has found that Complainant failed to satisfy its burden under the Policy, the Panel cannot conclude on that basis alone, that Complainant acted in bad faith.”); see also Church in Houston v. Moran, D2001-
0683 (WIPO Aug. 2, 2001) (noting that a finding of reverse domain name hijacking requires bad faith on the complainant’s part, which was not proven because the complainant did not know and should not have known that one of the three elements in Policy ¶ 4(a) was absent).

The Panel notes that Respondent does have rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. It also notes that the disputed domain name registration predates Complainant’s first claimed rights in the GOSECURE mark for almost 16 years. Nevertheless, Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in violation of its trademark rights. It also accuses Respondent of using its email operation for phishing, but the evidence does not support this contention.
Complainant initiated these proceedings after failing to purchase the domain name in the marketplace. Its trademark came into being long after the disputed domain name was registered, and Complainant had made prior unsolicited offers to purchase the domain name. See Mechoshade Systems, LLC v. DNS Admin / Mecho Investment, FA1805001784649 (FORUM June 18, 2018) (Complainant
continued to pursue this case, including with the frivolous and demonstrably incorrect arguments that use of a Domain Name for purposes of a family email address is not a legitimate interest.”)

This case is what is sometimes referred to as a “Plan B” scenario, where a complainant attempts to purchase a domain name and then switches tactics, bringing a complaint under the Policy despite a clear inability to make the required showings. See Aether, LLC v. Aether Domains / Aether Things, Inc., FA 1739957 (FORUM Aug. 24, 2017) (finding RDNH of <aether.com> where complaint was brought after unsuccessful commercial negotiations); EBSCO Industries, Inc. v. WebMagic Staff / WebMagic Ventures, LLC, FA 1722095 (FORUM May 25, 2017) (finding RDNH of “novelist.com” where respondent had previously rejected multiple purchase offers from complainant).

Complainant is represented by counsel with experience in the UDRP process, who likely advised Complainant that its position was unsupportable. See Daniel Biro / RealtyPRO Network, Inc. v. Ben Kueh / Computerese, FA 1929289 (FORUM Mar. 29, 2021) (finding RDNH against unrepresented complainant, while noting that such complainants “are generally given a free pass” for purposes of RDNH).

On balance, the Panel finds that the Complaint was brought in bad faith, in an instance of reverse domain name hijacking, and constitutes an abuse of the administrative proceeding.

DECISION

Having not established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be DENIED.

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <gosecure.com> domain name REMAIN WITH Respondent.

Complainant has engaged in Reverse Domain Name Hijacking.

Ho Hyun Nahm, Esq., Chair of the Panel, and Gerald M. Levine, Ph.D., Esq., and Fernando Triana, Esq. as Panelists 
Dated: August 19, 2021 

Puma SE v. Puma, Exports Pvt Ltd [WIPO Case No. D2021-1757]

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Puma SE, Germany, represented by RNA IP Attorneys, India.

The Respondent is Puma Exports Pvt Ltd, India, represented by Cylaw Solutions, India.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <pumaexports.com> is registered with eNom, LLC (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on June 3, 2021. On June 4, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On June 6, 2021, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on June 15, 2021 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on June 18, 2021.

The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).

In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on June 21, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was July 11, 2021. The Response was filed with the Center on July 7, 2021.

The Center appointed John Swinson as the sole panelist in this matter on July 16, 2021. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7.

4. Factual Background

The Complainant is a well-known international sports footwear and apparel company based in Germany.

The Complainant owns many trademark registrations for PUMA including Indian trademark registration number 323053 in class 18 for bags made of leather, having a filing date of February 15, 1977. The earliest registration for PUMA dates back to 1948.

The Respondent is an Indian manufacturer and exporter. The Respondent makes small leather goods, such as wallets and passport covers, and when receiving a wholesale order, will export these products to certain countries in Europe including Germany. The Respondent was formed as an Indian company in June 1990 under the name Puma Exports and Import Pvt. Ltd. and changed its name to its current name in March 1996.

The disputed domain name was registered by the Respondent on September 2, 1998.

The website at the disputed domain name promotes the Respondent’s leather good products.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant makes the following submissions:

The Complainant is one of the world’s leading sports brands designing, developing, selling and marketing footwear, apparel and accessories. For over 65 years, the Complainant has established a history of making fast product designs for the fastest athletes on the planet.

The Complainant coined the term PUMA in 1948 and obtained a trademark registration at that time.

The Complainant’s well known trademark PUMA is registered in a number of countries around the world, including India.

The Complainant, on its own and through its subsidiaries worldwide, is famous for manufacturing one of the most sophisticated sportswear and athletic shoes in the world.

The Complainant’s consolidated sales for the financial year 2016 were EUR 3626.7 million. Singer Rihanna is the new face of the Complainant.

The Complainant has extensively used the PUMA trademark in India since 1982. The PUMA brand is ranked at position 5th in the Top 10 shoe brands of India. By virtue of extensive use, PUMA products are immensely popular in India. The Complainant also uses the ubiquitous medium of the Internet to render and advertise its products and services.

The Complainant has rights in the PUMA mark that predates the registration date of the disputed domain name.

The disputed domain name is nearly identical to the Complainant’s PUMA trademark, save for the word “exports” which does not serve to distinguish the disputed domain name from the Complainant’s trademark.

The Respondent registered the domain name in 1998, which is several decades after the Complainant invested millions of dollars in popularizing and seeking registration of the PUMA trademark and domain name <www.puma.com>.

The Respondent has used the mark PUMA in its entirety to attract internet users and consumers for commercial gain by abusing the goodwill and reputation associated with the Complainant’s PUMA trademark.

The Respondent has no right to use the Complainant’s well-known mark PUMA as a part of its domain name as the Complainant has not authorized any such use. Unlicensed, unauthorized use of the disputed domain name incorporating Complainant’s trademark is a strong evidence that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests.

The fame and prior use of the Complainant’s PUMA trademark makes it extremely unlikely that the Respondent created the domain name independently. Given the prominence and well-known stature of the Complainant’s PUMA products, it is incomprehensible that the Respondent was unaware of Complainant’s PUMA trademark at the time of registering the domain name.

The Respondent’s choice of domain name is not accidental and has clearly been made to derive unfair monetary advantage by offering PUMA branded products without authorization from the Complainant.

Further allegations made by the Complainant are set out in the section below titled Reverse Domain Name Hijacking.

B. Respondent

The Respondent makes the following submissions:

The Respondent is a registered Company in India, which was incorporated on June 18, 1990 as Puma Exports and Import Pvt. Ltd. In March 1996, the Respondent was renamed to Puma Exports Pvt. Ltd.

The Respondent has been engaged in the business of manufacturing and exporting small leather products such as wallets, cardholders, passport covers, travel wallets and more similar products. This is evident not only from the existing active website at the disputed domain name but also on archive.org showing use since December 1998. The website clearly shows that the Respondent has been a supplier of high quality customized leather products and the word “PUMA” or “PUMA Exports” is nowhere used upon any products supplied.

The Respondent has been doing such export business with several companies globally for the last 31 years and exporting regular leather goods exports to Czech Republic, Poland, Germany and Russia through its logistic partner Dachser India Limited.

The word “puma” is a dictionary term to refer to a mountain lion, panther or cougar. This was the reason for adoption by the Respondent as its corporate identity, three decades ago. The Respondent was not the first business to have adopted the corporate identity as PUMA. There were 26 more companies that were formed with the brand / identity name as PUMA from 1979 until 1998 and many more were incorporated later.

The Complaint is contradictory, as it tries to claim usage since 1982 without providing any evidence in support, except for the “proposed to be used” trademarks. The Complainant’s trademarks (except one) that were applied for between 1977 until 2004 were proposed to be used.

The Complainant had established its first company in India in 2005, namely PUMA Sports India Pvt. Ltd. Moreover, an online search evidences that the Complainant entered in India in 2005-06 only.

The Complainant but never makes any reference to the popularity of the Complainant’s products in India in 1990, when the Respondent had adopted the name PUMA for the first time as its corporate identity.

The Complainant does not properly allege “bad faith registration” in relation to 1998, despite the Policy requiring both bad faith registration and bad faith use to be proved. The Respondent could not have been aware of the Complainant and its trademarks at the time of the registration of the disputed domain name.

Even the recognition of PUMA in India as a well-known mark has been very recent – since 2018 only. The Complainant falsely states that registration of the disputed domain name has been decades after the Complainant started using the trademark but fails to provide any evidence as to how the Respondent could have known about the Complainant or its brand in 1990s. The Complainant has provided no reasons or explanation as to why or how the Respondent could have known of the Complainant or its asserted rights in the year 1990. Actual knowledge of the Complainant and its trademark must exist for any finding against the Respondent.

The Complainant is represented by counsel, who is under an obligation imposed by paragraph 3(b)(xiii) of the Rules to undertake at least minimal due diligence before filing a complaint. The Complainant was already aware of the legitimate website at the disputed domain name and the name of the Respondent’s Incorporated Company. Since June 7, 2021, the Complainant has been serving other notices to the Respondent in a bid to harass a legitimate and a prior user.

The Compliant should be barred by the doctrine of Laches because the Complainant waited 22 years to initiate these proceedings – substantial, unreasonable delay by any measure and an eternity in “Internet time.”

This is not a case of cybersquatting, while the Policy’s purpose is to combat abusive domain name registrations and not to provide a prescriptive code for resolving more complex trademark disputes.

To prove bad faith registration, it must be shown that Respondent registered the disputed domain name not because of its common generic meaning, but rather specifically because it corresponded to a protected trademark.

During 1990 until 1998, the Respondent was already commonly known by the disputed domain name as business was being conducted under its corporate name. For several years now, the Respondent has been manufacturing and exporting custom made and custom logo embossed leather products for many reputed European companies. It is evident from the products displayed at the Respondent’s website that there has been no use of any brand name “PUMA”. Rather “PUMA Exports” is just a corporate identity.

Moreover, a long-standing director of the Respondent provided a sworn affidavit which stated that the Puma Exports name was selected by the Respondent because of the connection with the puma animal, that the Respondent did not have the Complainant in mind when selecting its corporate name, that the Puma Exports name was used as corporate branding and not as the branding for any product, and that the Respondent has no intention of disrupting the business of the Complainant or to confuse customers.

The Respondent requests that Panel issue finding of reverse domain name hijacking (RDNH) under Rule 15e since there is no basis for the claim and the Complainant (through its counsel) knew or should have known that before filing that Complaint, that they will not succeed in proving all three UDRP conditions. Further, where a complainant is represented by intellectual property counsel who even on rudimentary examination of Policy and its application in this area should have appreciated that complaint could not succeed, RDNH may be found. The claim was baseless.

6. Discussion and Findings

To succeed, the Complainant must demonstrate that all the elements enumerated in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy have been satisfied, namely:

(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and

(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and

(iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

The onus of proving these elements is on the Complainant.

Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules directs the Panel to decide the complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

There is no doubt that the Complainant has trademark rights in PUMA. This is a famous trademark.

The disputed domain name includes the Complainant’s PUMA trademark in its entirety. Where the relevant trademark is recognizable within the disputed domain name, the addition of other terms does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element of the Policy.

The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s PUMA trademark, disregarding the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com”.

The Complainant succeeds on the first element of the Policy in relation to the disputed domain name.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The second requirement the Complainant must prove is that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides that the following circumstances can be situations in which the Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name:

(i) before any notice to [the Respondent] of the dispute, [the Respondent’s] use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the [disputed] domain name or a name corresponding to the [disputed] domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or

(ii) [the Respondent] (as an individual, business, or other organization) has been commonly known by the [disputed] domain name, even if [the Respondent] has acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or

(iii) [the Respondent] is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the [disputed] domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.

These are illustrative only and are not an exhaustive listing of the situations in which a respondent can show rights or legitimate interests in a domain name.

The onus of proving this requirement, like each element, falls on the Complainant.

Panels have recognized the difficulties inherent in proving a negative, however, especially in circumstances where much of the relevant information is in, or likely to be in, the possession of the respondent.

Accordingly, it is sufficient for a complainant to raise a prima facie case against the respondent under this head and an evidential burden will shift to the respondent to rebut that prima facie case.

The Complainant has failed to make a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

The Respondent’s company name is “Puma, Exports Pvt Ltd”. This is evident from the website at the disputed domain name, that clearly states on the homepage “Puma Exports ℗Ltd is a OHSAS 18001: 2007 certified company by SGS. We started our leather production unit in the year 1994.” There is also a logo on the homepage that has the words “PUMA EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED”.

Accordingly, it is clear from a simple review of the website at the disputed domain name, unless there would be clear evidence that this statement is fraudulent, that the Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain name.

The Complaint does not address this aspect of the case at all.

To assist the Panel in this case, the Respondent provided documents from the Reserve Bank of India, the Income Tax Department, the Indo-German Chamber of Commerce, the Council for Leather Exports, the Government of West Bengal and the Kolkata Municipal Corporation, from the period 1990 to 2021. These documents clearly reinforce the Respondent’s position that it has been commonly known by the disputed domain name.

The Complainant fails on the second element of the Policy in relation to the disputed domain name.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

Paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy provides that the Complainant must establish that the Respondent registered and subsequently used the disputed domain name in bad faith.

The Respondent registered the disputed domain name in 1998, over twenty years ago.

The Complainant’s case on bad faith is that the PUMA trademark is so famous that it is inconceivable that the Respondent was unaware of this trademark in 1998, and that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name to seek “to take advantage of the goodwill accumulated by the Complainant, thus making it clear that Respondent fraudulently registered the alleged domain with dishonest intent.” The Complaint also asserts that the Respondent is selling PUMA branded leather goods.

It is however conceivable that the Respondent used the word PUMA in its company name in 1990, and then in its domain name in 1998, for reasons other than to take advantage of the Complainant and its reputation.

First, “puma” is a type of animal, a large cat. The Respondent states that it selected this term because it refers to an animal, not because of the Complainant.

Second, the Respondent is not selling PUMA branded leather goods. The goods are unbranded, or are custom-made and a branded with a customer’s logo.

Third, the Respondent is not selling sports apparel or footwear.

Fourth, the Respondent’s logo and trade dress is completely different to that of the Complainant.

Fifth, the Complainant’s Indian trademark registration does not appear to directly cover the Respondent’s goods.

Sixth, the Complainant did not enter the Indian market in a significant way until 2005.

 

The Panel finds that there is no evidence at all that suggests that the Respondent selected its company name or registered the disputed domain name to take advantage of the Complainant or the Complainant’s PUMA trademark.

There is no evidence that in 1998, the Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith within the meaning of the Policy.

The Respondent is by all appearances a long-standing bona fide business.

There is no evidence that in the 23 years since 1998, the Respondent used the disputed domain name in bad faith within the meaning of the Policy.

The Panel does not make any finding as to whether or not the Respondent is infringing any of the Complainant’s trademark registrations. The Panel is not a court to decide upon civil disputes or trademark infringement. The jurisdiction of this Panel is limited to providing a remedy in cases of “the abusive registration of domain names”, also known as “cybersquatting”. Impact Bank v. Trace Hallowell, WIPO Case No. D2021-1135. The Respondent is not a cybersquatter.

The Complainant fails on the third element of the Policy in relation to the disputed domain name.

7. Reverse Domain Name Hijacking

The Respondent states that the Complainant is engaging in reverse domain name hijacking (RDNH).

Paragraph 15(e) of the Rules provides that, if “after considering the submissions the panel finds that the complaint was brought in bad faith, for example in an attempt at Reverse Domain Name Hijacking or was brought primarily to harass the domain-name holder, the panel shall declare in its decision that the complaint was brought in bad faith and constitutes an abuse of the administrative proceeding”.

RDNH is furthermore defined under the Rules as “using the UDRP in bad faith to attempt to deprive a registered domain-name holder of a domain name.” Panels have also referred to paragraphs 3(b)(xiii) and (xiv) of the Rules in addressing possible RDNH scenarios.

Prior panels have found RDNH where the complainant had clear knowledge of a lack of respondent bad faith such as registration of the disputed domain name well before the complainant acquired trademark rights.

The Complainant, a large multinational corporation, was represented by legal counsel. The Complainant owns a world-famous trademark. The Complainant is entitled to enforce its trademark rights and to push the penumbra of its protection, but the Complainant is not entitled to file a misleading complaint.

The Complaint included the following incorrect or misleading statements:

“The Respondent is not and has never been known by the PUMA mark/name or by any similar name.”

“The alleged domain www.pumaexports.com is being used by the Respondent to illegally offer the products under the brand PUMA.”

“The evidences filed as Annexure 9 i.e., extracts from Respondent’s website at www.pumaexports.com clearly demonstrates the illegal activities wherein Respondent is offering wallets, belts etc. using the Complainant’s registered trademark PUMA.”

“The Respondent has wrongfully registered the domain name to make illegitimate gains by providing access to infringing PUMA materials for valuable consideration to buyer/s.”

As is clear from the Respondent’s website, the Respondent is known by the PUMA name. Further, Annexure 9 in the Complainant does not in any way demonstrate that the Respondent’s products are branded as PUMA products. The Respondent’s company name includes the word PUMA, but the products themselves are clearly unbranded products or are custom logo embossed leather products made for reputable companies (e.g., for Subaru). There is nothing clearly illegal about the Respondent’s activities.

The Complaint also makes serious allegations against the Respondent, that are unsupported or exaugurated. For example:

“There are no honest business activities carried out by the Respondent through the nearly identical/deceptively similar domain name.”

“… there is no credible legitimate reason for the Respondent to have chosen the domain name in question. The Respondent’s purpose in choosing the disputed domain name was plainly to use fame of the Complainant’s PUMA mark to generate web-traffic and to confuse internet users who might be looking for the Complainant and their famous products.”

“The Respondent’s registration and use of the domain name seeks to take advantage of the goodwill accumulated by the Complainant, thus making it clear that Respondent fraudulently registered the alleged domain with dishonest intention.”

“The evidence submitted by the Complainant overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that the Respondent had registered and is using the domain name in bad faith.”

“The Respondent’s choice of domain name is clearly fraudulent and with complete knowledge that such adoption is unauthorized.”

The tenor of the Complaint is that the Respondent is a dishonest and fraudulent company is selling pirated or infringing Puma products, which at best is a massive overstatement of the Complainant’s case and at worse a false and misleading allegation. A complainant should have clear evidence before alleging dishonesty or fraud, there is no such evidence here.

In these circumstances, the panel finds the Complainant guilty of RDNH.

8. Decision

For the foregoing reasons, the Complaint is denied.

John Swinson
Sole Panelist
Date: July 30, 2021

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Tata Sons Pvt. Ltd. v. Victor TSB
Case No. D2021-1084

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Tata Sons Pvt. Ltd., India, represented by Anand &amp; Anand, India. The Respondent is Victor TSB, Sri Lanka, self-represented. (Legal Support by Cylaw Solutions, India)

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <taatas.com> is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on April 9, 2021. On the same day, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On April 10, 2021, the Respondent sent an email to the Complainant disputing the substance of the Complaint, and another email to the Registrar, requesting that it unlock the disputed domain name. On April 12, 2021, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. In response to a notification by the Center that the Complaint was administratively deficient, the Complainant filed an amendment to the Complaint on April 20, 2021.

The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).
In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on May 4, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the original due date for Response was May 24, 2021. On May 10, 2021, the Respondent requested an extension due to the COVID-19 pandemic. On May 12, 2021, in accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(e), the Center extended the due date for the Response to June 13, 2021. The Response was filed with the Center on June 10, 2021. On the following day, the Complainant sent an email communication to the Center foreshadowing a supplemental filing, to which the Respondent objected. On June 13, 2021, the Complainant sent an unsolicited supplemental filing to the Center. On June 21, 2021, the Respondent sent an unsolicited supplemental filing to the Center.

The Center appointed Matthew Kennedy as the sole panelist in this matter on June 23, 2021. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7.

4. Factual Background

The Complainant is an Indian company and the principal holding company of the Tata Group, which has operations in multiple industrial sectors, including textiles, iron and steel, power, chemicals, hotels, automobiles, computers, software, electronics, telecommunications, financial services, mutual funds, tea, aviation, and retail. The Complainant is named after the group’s founder, Jamsetji Nusserwanji Tata. Tata Group companies do business in Sri Lanka: Tata Motors, sells vehicles in Sri Lanka and has a website at “www.tatamotors.lk”; Tata Communications Lanka Ltd is a Sri Lankan company; while Tata Housing has projects in Sri Lanka. The Complainant holds multiple trademark registrations in multiple jurisdictions, including Indian trademark registration number 92655 for TATA, specifying goods in class 1. That trademark registration remains current. The Complainant has also registered multiple domain names beginning with “tata” including <tata.com> that it uses in connection with a website where it provides information about its corporate group and its activities.

The Respondent is a Sri Lankan individual named Thobiyas Segaram Bernard VasanthKumaar. He uses the alias “Victor” while “TSB” are the initials of three of his names. He was selected to attend the 2016 Global Entrepreneurship Summit at Stanford University. He is sole director and sole shareholder of Taatas Global (Pvt) Ltd, a Sri Lankan company incorporated on March 14, 2017, and Taatas Global Export (Pvt) Ltd, a Sri Lankan company incorporated on February 24, 2021; he is also company secretary of Viain Holdings (Pvt) Ltd, a Sri Lankan company incorporated on March 10, 2020. The Respondent has registered at least ten domain names in his own name or that of Viain Holdings, or both. The disputed domain name was registered on October 9, 2020. It resolves to a website in English and Tamil for “Taatas – The Premium Quality Food Brand” offering a range of consumer agricultural products, including food, ghee, and toddy wine. The site displays three logos, two of which feature the brand “Taatas” and the other of which is for “Jac Miller”. Under the heading “About Our Store”, the site presents Taatas (Pvt) Ltd and its contact details in Jaffna, Sri Lanka. A copyright notice refers to Viain Holdings (Pvt) Ltd.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s well-known TATA trade and service mark. The disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith and is therefore a classic case of domain name squatting. The disputed domain name resolves to a website through which various food / edible products are being sold under the mark Taatas by a company called Taatas (Pvt) Ltd. The said company does not have any plausible reason for adoption and use of the Taatas mark, which is deceptively similar to the Complainant’s well-known trademark TATA. Internet users or the unwary general public who do not know that the Complainant and the Respondent have no affiliation with each other or that the Complainant has not licensed or authorized or endorsed the use of its famous and well-known mark TATA or any other mark deceptively similar to the mark TATA such as Taatas by the Respondent will confuse the activities of the Respondent as those which are being undertaken by the Complainant. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The Complainant has not licensed or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use its TATA mark or any other deceptively similar mark such as Taatas.

The disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. The Respondent had constructive notice of the Complainant’s rights in the TATA trademark. The Respondent uses the mark Taatas, which is identical to the Complainant’s well-known trademark TATA, as a part of the disputed domain name despite being aware of the substantial reputation and goodwill associated with the Complainant’s trademark and/or service mark. The Complainant has overwhelming statutory and common law rights in the well-known trade and service mark TATA. The Respondent has restrained the Complainant from exercising its legitimate right of registering a domain name that incorporates its mark. There is a great likelihood that actual or potential unwary visitors to the Respondent’s present webpage will be induced to believe that (i) the Complainant has authorised or licensed the actions of the Respondent or authorized the Respondent to register the disputed domain name; (ii) the Respondent has some connection with the Complainant in terms of a direct nexus or affiliation with the TATA Group or has been authorized by the Complainant to carry out these activities; and (iii) the sale of the disputed domain name has been authorized by the Complainant.

The Complainant has trademark registrations for the mark TATA in Sri Lanka. The Complainant is one of the most popular and reputed conglomerates based out of India and is popularly known as the Tata Group. Sri Lanka is located next to India and is part of the Indian sub-continent. The Respondent is therefore very well aware of the Complainant and its mark TATA which is also very popular in Sri Lanka. The only reason that the Respondent stated in his email of April 10, 2021 for the selection of the disputed domain name was based on numerology, which does not make any sense. The Respondent copied the Complainant’s mark TATA and added an extra “a” and an “s” with the aim of escaping liability.

B. Respondent

In his initial email communication of April 10, 2021, the Respondent argued that: the pronunciation of <taatas.com> and <tata.com> was totally different; there is no chance of typographical errors; the disputed domain name contains two additional letters and does not include “tata”; and the font type is totally different. He argued that the disputed domain name does not have any meaning and was selected by numerology. He also argued that the Parties are in totally different businesses with different targeted customers. He denied allegations of bad faith. In the Response he argues that “taata” means “guarantee” in Finnish and “father” in East Africa and rural Sri Lanka, thus “taatas” is a plural form of a common dictionary word. The word “guarantee” is often used on the Respondent’s website. “Taatas” is also a surname in the Philippines.

The Respondent has a strong belief in numerology; therefore, his obvious choice was the generic word “taata” with a plural “s”. The numerological value of all the Respondent’s brand names, including “taatas” is 14. The repetition of letters in a business name is considered auspicious. The Respondent’s name also begins with a “t” and contains a double “a”. He also owns other domain names that begin with “t” and at least two brands that contain a double “a”. The disputed domain name is not a case of typosquatting. The Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain name since 2017 when he registered the company name Taatas Global (Pvt) Ltd. He registered the disputed domain name to match that corporate name. He has also registered the company name Taatas Global Export (Pvt) Ltd and has applied to register the company name Taatas (Pvt) Ltd. The disputed domain name has been actively used. The first page of results of a simple Google search for “taatas” refer to the Respondent and its products but not to the Complainant. The Excise Department of Sri Lanka has approved two labels for Jaffna toddy wine which refer to Taatas Global (Pvt) Ltd. The Respondent has also used social media accounts since December 2020. Numerous websites in Sri Lanka have been listing the Respondent and its products since January 2021. The Respondent’s company appears on Google Maps with an image of 40-50 employees although now, due to the pandemic, the company has 30-35 employees. The Respondent has issued invoices to business customers since January 2021. This UDRP proceeding is not a court or forum to decide civil disputes or any kind of trademark rights between the Parties. Domain name policies are designed to deal with cases of pure cybersquatting, not disputes between parties with competing rights acting in good faith, which are outside the purview of the Policy.

The disputed domain name was not registered and is not being used in bad faith. The Complainant makes very limited references to its presence in Sri Lanka; it only refers to products different from those of the Respondent, some of which are not even marketed under the TATA brand, such as Taj Hotels, while it has sold its stake in the tea plantations in Sri Lanka, the tea from which was marketed as Zesta and Watawala. There is no evidence of third party use of the Complainant’s mark in Sri Lanka. Overall, the Complaint does not provide reasons as to why the Respondent should have known of the Complainant or its asserted rights. Actual knowledge of the Complainant’s mark is required. Other than asserting trademark registrations for TATA in Sri Lanka and a single domain name in the “.lk” country code Top-Level Domain, the Complainant has not provided any evidence about its business, reputation, sales volumes, advertising, marketing, revenue, or any other facts that could establish that the Complainant and its mark were particularly well-known in Sri Lanka and that the mark carries a secondary meaning, as “tata” is a dictionary word as well. The disputed domain name is actively used in connection with the company website of Taatas Global (Pvt) Ltd offering various food products that mainly fall in class 30, where the Complainant has no trademark registration for TATA in Sri Lanka. The Respondent never solicited the Complainant, never used the disputed domain name to interfere with the Complainant or in any way which prejudiced or harmed the Complainant or in any way that could be genuinely considered bad faith.

6. Discussion and Findings

6.1 Supplemental Filings

The Complainant requests that the Panel accept its supplemental filing but it does not provide any justification. The Respondent objects to the Complainant’s request, arguing that the supplemental filing is unsolicited and that the Panel should guard against Parties attempting to add an entirely new, cumbersome, and costly layer to the UDRP which would diminish its efficiency as a dispute resolution process. Alternatively, the Respondent asks the Panel to accept its own supplemental filing in reply.

Paragraph 10(c) of the Rules requires the Panel to ensure that the administrative proceeding takes place with due expedition. Paragraph 10(d) of the Rules also provides that “[t]he Panel shall determine the admissibility, relevance, materiality and weight of the evidence”. Although paragraph 12 of the Rules empowers the Panel, in its sole discretion, to request further statements or documents from either of the Parties, this does not preclude the Panel from accepting unsolicited filings. See Delikomat Betriebsverpflegung Gesellschaft m.b.H. v. Alexander Lehner, WIPO Case No. D2001-1447.

The Panel sees nothing in the Complainant’s supplemental filing that needs to be taken into account as it largely reiterates arguments in the Complaint, adding comments on the credibility of the Respondent’s reasons for choosing the disputed domain name that the Panel can assess on their face. The Complainant’s supplemental filing does not address the factual evidence annexed to the Response regarding such matters as the Respondent’s company name registrations and product labelling approval. If the Panel does not accept the Complainant’s supplemental filing, then the premise for accepting the Respondent’s supplemental filing in reply is not fulfilled.

Therefore, in the interests of ensuring that this administrative proceeding takes place with due expedition, the Panel declines to accept the Parties’ respective supplemental filings as part of the record of this proceeding.

6.2 Substantive Issues

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy provides that the complainant must prove each of the following elements:

(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; and
(ii) the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and
(iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

Based on the evidence submitted, the Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in the TATA mark. The Respondent argues that the Complainant has no trademark registration in Sri Lanka in respect of goods in class 30. Indeed, no trademark certificates were submitted and no online search of the Sri Lankan trademark register is available. Nevertheless, given inter alia that the Internet is a global medium, it is sufficient for the purposes of the first element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy for the Complainant to have demonstrated its trademark rights in any jurisdiction (in this case, India). Further, the goods and services for which the TATA mark is registered are not considered relevant to the first element test, although they bear on the Panel’s substantive determination under the second element below. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.1.2.

The disputed domain name contains all the letters of the TATA mark, plus an “a” inserted in the middle and an “s” added at the end, which combine to spell “taatas”. Contrary to the Complainant’s submission, this name is not identical to the TATA mark. However, “taatas” is at least phonetically very similar to the TATA mark.

The disputed domain name includes a generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com”, which is a technical requirement of domain name registration. A gTLD suffix is normally disregarded in the comparison between a disputed domain name and a trademark for the purposes of the first element of the Policy. Bearing in mind that the first element of paragraph 4(a) functions primarily as a standing requirement, the Panel considers that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7.
Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to two trademarks in which the Complainant has rights. The Complainant has satisfied the first element in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy sets out the following circumstances which, without limitation, if found by the panel, shall demonstrate that the respondent has rights to, or legitimate interests in, a disputed domain name, for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy:

(i) before any notice to [the respondent] of the dispute, [the respondent’s] use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the [disputed] domain name or a name corresponding to the [disputed] domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or

(ii) [the respondent] (as an individual, business, or other organization) [has] been commonly known by the [disputed] domain name, even if [the respondent has] acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or

(iii) [the respondent is] making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the [disputed] domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.

The Panel will assess the rights and legitimate interests of the Respondent as at the time of the filing of the Complaint. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.11.

As regards the first and second circumstances set out above, the Respondent uses the disputed domain name in connection with a website that offers food, wine, and other products for sale under the Taatas brand. The Complainant submits that it has not licensed or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use its TATA mark or any other deceptively similar mark such as, in its view, “Taatas”. However, the Respondent is not using the TATA mark nor has he incorporated the TATA mark as such in the disputed domain name. Rather, the Respondent is using the name “Taatas” in logos that do not resemble any of the Tata figurative marks on record. Nothing on the Respondent’s website gives the impression that the website is owned, operated or endorsed by, or affiliated with, the Complainant. On the contrary, Taatas Global (Pvt) Ltd is the Respondent’s company name. Although the Respondent used an alias when he registered the disputed domain name and other domain names (usually with one of his company names), and although there are minor differences between his Taatas company names, the Respondent’s company contact details are displayed on the associated website. Further, the Respondent’s products are dissimilar from those of the Tata Group, with the exception of tea, a product that the Complaint mentions without elaboration.

The Complainant acknowledges that the name of the website operator is shown as “Taatas (Pvt) Ltd” but declined to engage with the website content, despite submitting an extensive Complaint with 61 annexes, two of them containing screenshots of that website. The Complainant’s case rests on the fame of the TATA mark and the similarity between that mark and the disputed domain name.

The Response shows that Taatas Global (Pvt) Ltd promotes itself online as a leading food and spices manufacturer and distributor. Taatas products include rice bran oil, ghee, henna powder, palm sugar, pickles, and spice (but not tea) that are advertised online, including on social media. The Respondent appears to have dozens of employees. The Respondent has issued invoices bearing the Taatas logo and the disputed domain name issued to domestic and foreign customers by Taatas Global (Pvt) Ltd in favor of Viain Holdings (Pvt) Ltd, and issued by Viain Holdings (Pvt) Ltd since the beginning of 2021, prior to the filing of the Complaint. The Respondent also provides details of Taatas’ invoices to domestic customers during a four-month period. Further, the manufacturer of Jac Miller toddy wine filed an application with the Excise Department of Sri Lanka in 2021, prior to the filing of the Complaint, for approval of bottle labels that include the words “Marketing by Taatas Global Pvt (Ltd)” “www.taatas.com”. Approval was granted on May 31, 2021. The top results of a Google search for “Taatas” are for the website associated with the disputed domain name and Taatas food products, not the Complainant.

The Complainant, despite making a supplemental filing, chose not to engage with any of this evidence. The Panel does not consider this to be a classic case of domain name squatting, contrary to the Complainant’s assertion. There is evidence on the record of this proceeding that the Respondent has made demonstrable preparations and is in fact using the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. The evidence also shows that, at least in the particular sector of distribution of Sri Lankan consumer agricultural products, the Respondent, as a business, is commonly known as “Taatas”.

Although the Panel considers that the Respondent’s reasons for adoption of his company names lack credibility and are largely unrelated to the use that he is actually making of the disputed domain name, that alone does not support a finding of cybersquatting in this case. The Respondent chose the disputed domain name to match his company name, which was registered years earlier. And while the Panel notes that the registration of the Respondent’s company name, which bears remarkable similarity to the Complainant’s famous brand (which covers nearly all classes) may merit further legal inquiry, the Panel is not persuaded that this is a case of a registration of a company name as a pretext to justify a domain name registration and thereby to circumvent the application of the Policy. Notably this case differs in that material respect from cases such as Madonna Ciccone, p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi and “Madonna.com”, WIPO Case No. D2000-0847, where a trademark (or corporate) registration was found to be a pretext for cybersquatting. In any case, the Panel recalls that, in such a nuanced case the Panel is not called upon to weigh up the Parties’ respective rights.

Therefore, based on the record of this proceeding, the Panel notes that the Complainant has failed to satisfy the second element in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. In the Panel’s view, this case could be better adjudicated in a court.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

Given the Panel’s findings in section 6.2B above, it is unnecessary to consider bad faith under the third element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.

D. Reverse Domain Name Hijacking

Paragraph 15(e) of the Rules, provides that if “after considering the submissions the panel finds that the complaint was brought in bad faith, for example in an attempt at Reverse Domain Name Hijacking, or was brought primarily to harass the domain-name holder, the panel shall declare in its decision that the complaint was brought in bad faith and constitutes an abuse of the administrative proceeding”. “Reverse Domain Name Hijacking” is defined in paragraph 1 of the Rules as “using the UDRP in bad faith to attempt to deprive a registered domain-name holder of a domain name.”

The Respondent requests that the Panel make a finding of reverse domain name hijacking. It argues that there is no basis for the claim and that the Complainant (through its counsel) knew or should have known that they would not succeed in proving at least one of the three UDRP conditions.

The Panel notes that the Complaint, on one hand, contains relatively little addressing the actual use that the Respondent is making of the disputed domain name while, on the other hand, it speculates freely on potential uses that the Respondent might make of it, alleging that he might extract money from Internet users by portraying association or affiliation to the Complainant, or that he might sell the disputed domain name at an astronomical price, or that he might put up objectionable material. None of these speculations appears to be grounded in fact. The Panel notes that the Complainant is represented by counsel.

The Panel is not persuaded that the defects in the Complaint sink to the level of bad faith. The Complainant, a famous brand and moreover based in a jurisdiction close to that of the Respondent, appears to have genuinely believed that it had a case. Therefore, the Panel declines to make a finding of reverse domain name hijacking.

The Panel recalls that the Complainant may commence proceedings in a court of competent jurisdiction if it considers that it has valid grounds to allege trademark infringement or unfair competition. The disposition of such proceedings would inevitably address the registration and use of the disputed domain name.

7. Decision

For the foregoing reasons, the Complaint is denied.

Matthew Kennedy
Sole Panelist
Date: June 28, 2021