Thread: Convergys wins Convergys.in in INDRP case

Convergys Corporation, a US-based relationship management firm, filed an INDRP case with regard to the domain Convergys.in.

Convergys owns three trademarks in India for CONVERGYS. According to the Whois, the respondent registered this domain in February 2007. All three CONVERGYS trademarks existed before this registration date.

As the respondent did not file a reply, the Arbitrator concluded:

The Respondent's registration of the domain name <www.convergys.in> is likely to cause confusion and deception and lead the general public and the members of the trade into believing that the said domain name enjoys endorsement and/or originates from the Complainant. The foregoing circumstances lead to the presumption that the domain name in dispute was registered and used by the Respondent in bad faith. As the Respondent has failed to rebut this presumption, I conclude that the domain name was registered and used by the Respondent in bad faith.

I'm not surprised that the Arbitrator ordered the transfer of Convergys.in to Convergys Corporation as there are obvious trademark issues involved with this domain.

There's some confusion about Convergys owing the exact same domain (which can't be possible):

Another interesting aspect is that the Complainant had already registered the domain name <www.convergys. in. The Respondent has also registered the exactly identical domain name, that is, <www.convergys.in>. It is not clear as to how the registration of two exactly identical domain names is possible. This is a serious matter and requires probe by the competent authorities.

I wonder if Convergys inadvertently let the domain drop, and it was then picked up by the respondent?

Probably let it drop.

This is a good decision by INDRP tbh.

And please note the acceptance of a non-Indian tm

Originally Posted by mwzd

And please note the acceptance of a non-Indian tm

From what I understand, the three trademarks that were quoted were registered in India?

This was a open & shut case. the respondent didn't stand a chance