Cybersquatting...INDRP case

Discussion in 'Legal Issues and Dispute' started by Ceres, Apr 16, 2009.

  1. Ceres

    Ceres New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2008
    Messages:
    2,206
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Canada
    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?
     
  2. Jeff
    • Staff / Moderator

    Jeff Canada Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2008
    Messages:
    4,645
    Likes Received:
    652
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Seems like a no brainer case, although that's a stiff fine.
     
  3. Ceres

    Ceres New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2008
    Messages:
    2,206
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Canada
  4. hosting

    hosting New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2009
    Messages:
    208
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Nottingham, UK
    I recently saw JLo won a case too. I was thinking of registering a doman on CourtneyLove.in ;-) I will be out of the personal domain names ;-)
     
  5. Ceres

    Ceres New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2008
    Messages:
    2,206
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Canada
    Yes, the JLo decision is not surprising.

    Hey hosting, get your wallet out and get ready to pay a costs award made against you...:p

    Seriously though, I sometimes wonder if some of these people simply don't realise that registering these type of domains infringes on third party rights? What do you think?
     
  6. skyshipper

    skyshipper India Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2009
    Messages:
    556
    Likes Received:
    35
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Location:
    under the sun
    Yes ,they sure do.:)
    But i think something like britneyspearspictures, or JLofans is not an infringement.
    britneyspears or JLo should be owned by respective parties,
    surnames and first names are definitely not infinging !
    So a sharapova.in or Jennifer.co.in is no infringement.
    However i think it is mostly in the initial domaining endevours that most domainers reg these celebrity names!
    I think once the lexicons of the domain industry are clearly spelled out, none takes reg these names very aggresively .Maybe just some reg to test traffic and make hay while the sun shines!definitely not keepers.

    just some food for thought. Ash.in , just in case is challenged legally.Does the defendent get a fair trail? considering the status and icon status of the said!:)
     
  7. Ceres

    Ceres New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2008
    Messages:
    2,206
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Canada
    If you make money from a fan site, there's a risk you could lose the domain.

    If it's a non-commercial site and you make no money from it, there's less of a risk that you'll lose the domain.

    Owing domains with just a first name or surname is safer, however you still need to be careful how you use the domain.

    For example, if you have a site Jennifer.co.in and it has ads on celebrity Jennifer Lopez, there's a risk you'd lose the domain as you'd be trading off the goodwill of this famous celebrity.
     
  8. LLL.in King

    LLL.in King United States Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2008
    Messages:
    1,395
    Likes Received:
    455
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Yes, this case went as it should've. The registerant should not have registered this name initially, and he tried to sell it to Kennth Cole, which was also wrong, once the UDRP case was born. As said already, a bit of a no-brainer....same prediction for kennethcole.co.in. These cases do prove one thing i like: .in names are so valuable, people are willing to sue for them. Bad to cybersquat, good to see people fighting for good names.
     
  9. Ceres

    Ceres New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2008
    Messages:
    2,206
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Canada
    As expected, the respondent in the KennethCole.co.in case lost his domain. He was ordered to pay Kenneth Cole Productions Inc a sum of Rs. 25,000. The respondent did not file a response in the case.

    The Arbitrator stated:

    INDRP/82 is the Armani.co.in case. Same respondent.

    The above highlights that the tribunal will take into consideration past INDRP cases that a respondent has been involved in. While I think the Arbitrator is correct in his final decision, I think the tribunal should *not* rely on past cases of the respondent. This is because some INDRP cases have been decided unfairly! What are your views?

    Here's the full decision of KennethCole.co.in.