Danone.co.in transferred to Danone

Ceres · #1 (**permalink**) 05-27-2009, 12:49 PM

The complainant in this INDRP case is Compagnie Gervais Danone. It is the owner of the well-known Danone trademark. It produces diary products etc.

The respondent, a web development firm, consented to the transfer of Danone.co.in. It stated that the domain was registered for a client who never turned up after the domain was registered for them.

It's no surprise that Danone got this domain. I predict the same thing will happen in the pending case of Danone.in, which is registered by the same respondent.

Jeff · #2 (**permalink**) 05-28-2009, 05:40 AM

That one was a no brainer. Plus, the respondent's story seems a bit fishy.

Ceres · #3 (**permalink**) 05-31-2009, 01:00 AM

Coincidentally, today I came across a WIPO decision in which DanoneIndia.com was also transferred to Danone. In this case, the respondent stated:

Quote:

it has always been agreeable to transfer the disputed domain name <danoneindia.com> to the Complainant and that it has not, at any point, acted in bad faith. The Respondent once again re-iterates that it is willing to transfer the domain name to the Complainant as previously mentioned in all correspondences with the Complainant?s representative.

Ceres · #4 (**permalink**) 07-02-2009, 11:31 AM

The same respondent in the Danone.co.in case also just lost the domain Danone.in.

Again, the respondent claimed it was acting on behalf of a client who had disappeared, and that the respondent did not have the client's full contact details. The respondent also claimed that its client had intended to set up a Danone fan site.

The Arbitrator stated that:

(1) The respondent did not take due care when it went ahead and registered the domain 'danone.in' despite not having full contact details for the client.

(2) The story about a fan site for a 'company' did not inspire confidence as fan sites usually involve film personalities, pop singers, celebrities etc., and not a company. Even if a company fan site was intended, the respondent would have needed the consent of the actual company.

Another thing that hurt the respondent's defence was this email they sent to the complainant/complainant's lawyers:

Quote:

we have registered domain to develop a website for Danone Fan Club. Now that Danone itself wants this domain, we will be eager to develop their website. Being in the development from last 10 years we have developed many websites. A strong profile of the
group like this will enrich our customer list and side by side compensate us.

The Arbitrator pointed out that the complainant's lawyers were also not above board as, despite requests by the respondent, they would not provide evidence that they were authorized to act on behalf of Danone.

The complainant sought costs, but this was denied:

Quote:

The Complainants have claimed from the Respondents a sum of Rs. 170000,00 towards its attorney fees, procedural costs and damages, but no details of the same have been provided , hence this Tribunal is unable to accede to the said claim of the Complainants.

PeopleNet Global · #5 (**permalink**) 07-02-2009, 05:33 PM

Agree with you Ceres.

Of late, there are more instances of the .in extensions taken by companies to promote their brands.

About a week ago, Tata Motors launched Jaguar and Landrover cars in India with its official websites being Jaguar.in and LandRover.in.

Jeff · #6 (**permalink**) 07-03-2009, 03:05 PM

Thanks for the heads up PeopleNet Global! Those are really nice websites.