Ceres
New Member
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:
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?
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?