Thread: Cybersquatting...INDRP case

The well-known fashion company Kenneth Cole Productions Inc won the domain KennethCole.in in an INDRP case. The company owns two trademarks in India effective 1997 and 2001 for the term KENNETH COLE.

The respondent registered the domain KennethCole.in in 2007.

The respondent did not file a response in this case. There was no evidence to suggest that the respondent had a legitimate commercial interest in using the term Kenneth Cole, and there was no website on the domain.

The Arbitrator stated that:

Registration of a famous trademark without legitimate commercial interests in the same is prima facie evdence that the Respondent was well aware of the reputation and goodwill attached to the Complainant's trademark/name. Thus the Respondent has registered the web site in bad faith.

Respondent's bad faith registration is evidently clear from his offer to sell the disputed domain <kennethcole.in> to the Complainant.

The respondent was also ordered to pay Rs.5,00,000 (rupees five lakhs) towards the cost of the proceedings.

I think this is the right decision by the Arbitrator as it's a blatant case of cybersquatting.

I notice KennethCole.co.in is on the pending list of INDRP cases. Different respondent but I'm guessing the complainant will also win that case. That domain was registered in 2007, it doesn't resolve to a website...sounds familiar...

Cybersquatters hurt the domain industry.

Anyone else wish to share their views on this case?

Seems like a no brainer case, although that's a stiff fine.

Originally Posted by Jeff

Seems like a no brainer case, although that's a stiff fine.

It's not the first time they've ordered that costs be paid - they are sending a warning message to cybersquatters. See other similar cases:

typosquatter ordered to pay costs

and

INDRP costs award: 5 lakhs rupees

I recently saw JLo won a case too. I was thinking of registering a doman on CourtneyLove.in ;-) I will be out of the personal domain names ;-)

Originally Posted by hosting

I recently saw JLo won a case too

Yes, the JLo decision is not surprising.

Originally Posted by hosting

I was thinking of registering a doman on CourtneyLove.in ;-) I will be out of the personal domain names ;-)

Hey hosting, get your wallet out and get ready to pay a costs award made against you...

Seriously though, I sometimes wonder if some of these people simply don't realise that registering these type of domains infringes on third party rights? What do you think?

Originally Posted by Ceres

Seriously though, I sometimes wonder if some of these people simply don't realise that registering these type of domains infringes on third party rights? What do you think?

Yes ,they sure do.
But i think something like britneyspearspictures, or JLofans is not an infringement.
britneyspears or JLo should be owned by respective parties,
surnames and first names are definitely not infinging !
So a sharapova.in or Jennifer.co.in is no infringement.
However i think it is mostly in the initial domaining endevours that most domainers reg these celebrity names!
I think once the lexicons of the domain industry are clearly spelled out, none takes reg these names very aggresively .Maybe just some reg to test traffic and make hay while the sun shines!definitely not keepers.

just some food for thought. Ash.in , just in case is challenged legally.Does the defendent get a fair trail? considering the status and icon status of the said!

Originally Posted by kaustavk666

But i think something like britneyspearspictures, or JLofans is not an infringement.

If you make money from a fan site, there's a risk you could lose the domain.

If it's a non-commercial site and you make no money from it, there's less of a risk that you'll lose the domain.

Originally Posted by kaustavk666

So a sharapova.in or Jennifer.co.in is no infringement.

Owing domains with just a first name or surname is safer, however you still need to be careful how you use the domain.

For example, if you have a site Jennifer.co.in and it has ads on celebrity Jennifer Lopez, there's a risk you'd lose the domain as you'd be trading off the goodwill of this famous celebrity.

Yes, this case went as it should've. The registerant should not have registered this name initially, and he tried to sell it to Kennth Cole, which was also wrong, once the UDRP case was born. As said already, a bit of a no-brainer....same prediction for kennethcole.co.in. These cases do prove one thing i like: .in names are so valuable, people are willing to sue for them. Bad to cybersquat, good to see people fighting for good names.

As expected, the respondent in the KennethCole.co.in case lost his domain. He was ordered to pay Kenneth Cole Productions Inc a sum of Rs. 25,000. The respondent did not file a response in the case.

The Arbitrator stated:

b) The panel finds that the respondent in the above matter is habitual cyber squatter and has been registering well known trade marks as the domain names. Reliance is made on case no. INDRP/82 concerning domain name armani.co.in.

INDRP/82 is the Armani.co.in case. Same respondent.

The above highlights that the tribunal will take into consideration past INDRP cases that a respondent has been involved in. While I think the Arbitrator is correct in his final decision, I think the tribunal should *not* rely on past cases of the respondent. This is because some INDRP cases have been decided unfairly! What are your views?

Here's the full decision of KennethCole.co.in.