Results 1 to 10 of 10
Thread: all.in - INDRP decision
-
04-03-2009, 08:10 PM #1
all.in - INDRP decision
*Note* this decision is currently removed from the INRegistry website. I don't know why. However, you can view the attached copy which I happen to make.
The complainant, Pantaloon Retail (India) Ltd, was successful in their INDRP case involving the domain all.in.
Pantaloon owns many brand stores in India, one of which is called aLL (offering plus size clothing). It also owns a trademark for "aLL" - I assume the trademark is used in association with clothing (this information is not provided).
According to the Whois, the domain was registered on 16 February 2005. I don't know when Pantaloon obtained their aLL trademark (this information is not provided).
The first thing you'll notice is that the term "all" is a generic term. The Arbitrator stated:
The respondent stated it was intending to set up a shopping portal that would assist Indian netizens and regular shoppers to make more informed decisions, by discovering and reviewing various aspects of products prior to purchase. It's not clear to me if the website had already been set up or not (this information is not provided).The generic nature of the word, 'aLL does not affect the specific secondary meaning acquired by the disputed mark through extensive use, promotional activities and advertising by the Complainant [Eurobet UK Ltd. v. Intergate, WIPO Case No. D2001-1270]
In my opinion, not enough details were provided in this decision. I find it hard to ascertain the full facts of the case.
What does everyone else think? Do you agree that the case details are too vague?
Coincidently, today I came across the Arbitrator's website, which you can find here.Last edited by Ceres; 04-20-2009 at 08:58 PM.
-
04-03-2009, 08:47 PM #2
Re: all.in - INDRP decision
As the all.in decision touched on this subject, I did a bit of research on "secondary meanings" for common words.
In the US (not 100% sure about India), it's possible for a party to receive limited trademark protection for a common word that has attained a secondary meaning.
Source: FAQ about TrademarkQuestion: What does "Secondary Meaning" refer to?
Answer: Many words are commonly used in ordinary language. Can they become trademarks? They can if they acquire special significance in reference to particular goods. For example, "apple" is a common word, but also a trademark for computers and for recordings. The word has acquired "secondary meaning" in each product category because consumers associate it with a particular brand of product.
In summary, you can have a trademark for Apple used in association for computers, but you can't have a trademark for Apple used in association with apples.
Also, it will take a lot of branding and marketing to attain that "secondary meaning" status in the eyes of the public.
-
04-05-2009, 12:32 PM #3
Re: all.in - INDRP decision
i think the decision is according to the policy of the moment.as market liberation and free market is being embaraced, more then usuall helping hand is being lent to the parties!. assuming an individual with no business interest is holding something which will hamper the business oppurtunities of the complainant ,the judiciary will gladly side with the complainant.!.
However if it was a dispute between two equally responsive organisations,then the decision would have been more deliberate and fair!
For that i suppose marketing ones assets ,in this case ,domain, by actively developing would have assisted a bit in defence.!.
As such any words ,generic or specific nouns will be of no use unless the defendant puts it to use!
So i guess the judgement is fair from a layman or judicial point of view.
Not so from domainers view!
-
04-05-2009, 02:40 PM #4
Re: all.in - INDRP decision
There was a laundry detergent in the US named All. It was a major brand, perhaps by Proctior & Gamble or Unilever. I don't know if it's still on the market [I use Tide
]
moneyfixfactory readingstoday.com goldfunds.us viralseller
-
04-06-2009, 02:02 AM #5
-
04-06-2009, 04:20 AM #6
Re: all.in - INDRP decision
I think that it's also important to note that it doesn't look like the respondent was represented by a lawyer. That can make a big difference.
-
04-07-2009, 11:00 AM #7
Re: all.in - INDRP decision
The official ALL.in decision is now back on the IN Registry website. You can find it at:
ALL.in - INDRP case
-
04-08-2009, 01:18 AM #8
Re: all.in - INDRP decision
Thanks. I can't see any changes.
-
04-08-2009, 02:53 AM #9
Re: all.in - INDRP decision
No, I can't see any changes either. I had hoped more info would be included in the decision. I guess we'll never know all the relevant facts that pertains to this case.
-
04-20-2009, 07:38 PM #10
Re: all.in - INDRP decision
I wrote up a bit more about this on the blog:
What Domainers Need To Know About Well Known Trademarks in India : INForum.in Blog
Similar Threads
-
BrandFactory.in - INDRP decision
By Ceres in forum Legal Issues and DisputeReplies: 0Last Post: 03-13-2009, 09:18 PM -
Changes to INDRP Fees
By Ceres in forum Legal Issues and DisputeReplies: 0Last Post: 01-28-2009, 03:30 AM -
INDRP Dispute Decision: Alibaba.co.in
By Ceres in forum Legal Issues and DisputeReplies: 0Last Post: 10-28-2008, 01:22 AM -
INDRP Dispute Decision: TamilMatrimony.co.in
By Ceres in forum Legal Issues and DisputeReplies: 0Last Post: 10-24-2008, 04:14 PM -
INDRP Decision: Mentis.in
By Ceres in forum Legal Issues and DisputeReplies: 3Last Post: 10-22-2008, 02:50 AM


LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote


