Ceres
New Member
The domain under dispute is BrandFactory.in.
The Complainant is Pantaloon Retail (India) Limited, one of India's largest retail chains. Pantaloon applied for the trademark BRAND FACTORY in India on July 21, 2006.
The Respondent is Oriental Extractions Pvt. Ltd. It registered the domain BrandFactory.in in 2006. I checked the Whois and the exact date of registration is August 23, 2006.
Brand Factory is the name of one of Pantaloon's many outlet stores. The Arbitrator ordered that the disputed domain name be transferred to Pantaloon as it had met all the required elements to succeed in an INDRP case. The Respondent did not file a response in this case.
A few things make me think that perhaps this was not a bad faith registration. A brief internet search reveals the Respondent (which is a sister company of SD Pharmacy Group) is in the herbal soaps business. I came across an article that commented on how successfully the Respondent was branding one of its soaps. This might point to why the Respondent had a legitimate interest in the domain under dispute. Also, the domain was not parked (sounds like it didn't point to any actual website). I'm guessing the company had plans for the domain name, but ended up doing nothing with it. However, we'll never know this for sure?
If you don't file a response, you drastically reduce your chances of winning. I wonder if the decision would have been different if the Respondent had filed a response. What do you think?
The Complainant is Pantaloon Retail (India) Limited, one of India's largest retail chains. Pantaloon applied for the trademark BRAND FACTORY in India on July 21, 2006.
The Respondent is Oriental Extractions Pvt. Ltd. It registered the domain BrandFactory.in in 2006. I checked the Whois and the exact date of registration is August 23, 2006.
Brand Factory is the name of one of Pantaloon's many outlet stores. The Arbitrator ordered that the disputed domain name be transferred to Pantaloon as it had met all the required elements to succeed in an INDRP case. The Respondent did not file a response in this case.
A few things make me think that perhaps this was not a bad faith registration. A brief internet search reveals the Respondent (which is a sister company of SD Pharmacy Group) is in the herbal soaps business. I came across an article that commented on how successfully the Respondent was branding one of its soaps. This might point to why the Respondent had a legitimate interest in the domain under dispute. Also, the domain was not parked (sounds like it didn't point to any actual website). I'm guessing the company had plans for the domain name, but ended up doing nothing with it. However, we'll never know this for sure?
If you don't file a response, you drastically reduce your chances of winning. I wonder if the decision would have been different if the Respondent had filed a response. What do you think?
Last edited by a moderator:
