Thread: List of Pending INDRP Disputes

Originally Posted by Ceres

With regard to Macmillan.in, I'm probably missing something here, but it seems like a legitimate website for Macmillan Insulations India Pvt Ltd and doesn't seem like a bad faith registration.

I can't see evidence of confusion with this company using the Macmillan name in association with insulation services.

Just to update this thread. Here's the recent Macmillan.in decision with explanation as to why the complainants won the domain.

Originally Posted by Ace

Assuming in Wills's case the plaintiff, is the cigarette maker, how come they do not object to Wills.com?

Ace, Your assumption regarding the identity of the complainant was right. The Wills.in decision has been released.

Regarding Wills.com, according to the Complainant, they "spent considerable amount of money and skill" for the development of this website (plus another website). However, I don't see their connection to the .com site. Anyone else?

Interesting additions to the pending INDRP list. I am guessing the 7 cases listed below are all related to Pantaloon Retail (India) Ltd. They own the stores: Brand Factory, aLL and Pantaloons. They also use the brands: RiG, UMM, Honey and Bare.

Domains under dispute:
pantaloons.in
rig.in
umm.in
all.in
honey.in
brandfactory.in
bare.in

I'm guessing the outcome of these cases will depend on a number of things such as:
- when the domains were registered;
- whether the respondent and complainant are doing business in different channels of trade;
- what are the established rights of each party?;
- with regard to the generic names, how 'well-known' are these stores and brands in India?

What does everyone else think? In any event, we'll find out in due course!

--------
UPDATE - Here are the decisions:

Pantaloon Goes After Domain #6

Pantaloons.in - INDRP Decision

Most of those 7 names are highly disputable to me. Rig.in, all.in, honey.in are all such generic terms, the plaintiff is going to have to have a very strong case, unless these INDRP laws are warped in favor of the plaintiff, which i'm seeing some of that going on. How can you have a TM on a generic word like honey? i don't think anybody should have that automatically, even if you have a company named after it. All.in should be a toss up.

i think pantaloons.in is going to go to the plaintiff,pantaloons is associated with a particular company in india,others are too generic ,so it should be the case of the domains staying with their owners.
regarding wills.in ,the term 'wills' is usually associated with one particular cigarrette company(later diversified),so it is no surprise,wills not being a global brand(i think),the dotcoms even though being of different ownership,the case is very much along expectations..
thanks for the info guys

rig.in
umm.in
all.in
honey.in
bare.in

I hope the above do not got to the Plantiff. It will send a wrong precedent. Which means that if a car manufacturer say Toyota makes a car brand XYZ.IN that they should own xyz.in?

Doesn't add up in IMHO

Originally Posted by Ace

rig.in
umm.in
all.in
honey.in
bare.in

I hope the above do not got to the Plantiff. It will send a wrong precedent. Which means that if a car manufacturer say Toyota makes a car brand XYZ.IN that they should own xyz.in?

Doesn't add up in IMHO

Ya I agree

It seems that kennethcole.co.in is also added on the list. Its a no-brainer I guess.

Thanks for the update Ace.

You don't see as many .co.in cases.

Agree that this one is a no brainer.

Originally Posted by Ace

It seems that kennethcole.co.in is also added on the list. Its a no-brainer I guess.

It's the same respondent as in the Armani.co.in case. They've already had one strike against them...