Ceres
New Member
In 2008, Allianz SE (which offers insurance banking and asset management services), won the domain Allianz.in. After reading the 2008 decision, I agree that Allianz deserved to win the trademarked domain.
Fast forward one year, the Germany company also wins Allianz.co.in in the latest arbitration decision (different respondent). No surprises there I suppose.
However, regardless of the fact that the present case seems like a blatant case of trademark infringement, I have a problem with the fact that the Arbitrator did not set out how they reached their findings. IMHO, the decision is way too vague.
I would have thought it's really important for the Arbitrator to set out how the complainant satisfied the requirements under para 4 of the INDRP rules (blatant infringement case or not).
What do you think? It's not the first time I've come across such vague decisions.
Fast forward one year, the Germany company also wins Allianz.co.in in the latest arbitration decision (different respondent). No surprises there I suppose.
However, regardless of the fact that the present case seems like a blatant case of trademark infringement, I have a problem with the fact that the Arbitrator did not set out how they reached their findings. IMHO, the decision is way too vague.
I would have thought it's really important for the Arbitrator to set out how the complainant satisfied the requirements under para 4 of the INDRP rules (blatant infringement case or not).
What do you think? It's not the first time I've come across such vague decisions.
Last edited by a moderator:
