Hottie.com UDRP: complainant is guilty of RDNH - link Hottie.in INDRP: domain ordered to be transferred to the same complainant - link Some rulings from Hottie.in INDRP case made by arbitrator Ranjan Narula: "The respondent contended that the Complainant has registered trademark in Australia and New Zealand which is unrelated to doing business in India. However, according to several INDRP and WIPO decisions, if the Complainant owns a trademark, then it generally satisfies the threshold requirement of having trademark rights. The location of the trademark, its date of registration (or first use) , and the goods and/or services for which it is registered, are all irrelevant for the purpose of finding rights in a trademark under the first element." So, according to the above arbitartor, time, location, goods/services trademarked are all irrelevant for the sake of INDRP process. So, the owner of any sh*tty TM registered anywhere in the world can file INDRP dispute to steal the valuable domain? What a BS. Further, he should at least have read Hottie.com UDRP case where the complainant was found guilty of RDNH due to, among others, the fact that hottie.com was registered before the complainant registered its Hottie mark. "The difficulty in this case lies in the fact that the domain name www.hottie.in, although descriptive or generic in relation to certain services or goods, maybe a valid trademark for others. The difficulty is expounded by the fact that, while hottie may be considered a common world in English speaking countries, this may not be the case in non English speaking countries." The arbitrator accepts that "hottie" is generic English word. Australia, New Zealand, USA, India, i.e. countries mentioned in the Hottie.in INDRP, are all English speaking counties. Why the heck he mentions non English speaking countries and thinks that non English countries are by any means related to this INDRP? "...the domain name www.hottie.in is merely parked by the Respondent to generate advertising revenue by "click-through" or "pay per click" business model. This business model though legitimate may be done with a legitimate domain name. If, on other hand, another's trademark is used without authorization for the purpose of attracting visitors, then some visitors may be confused into thinking, at least initially, that the website they have reached is in some way endorsed by the Complainant, when it is not. I find that in this case that the Respondent has attracted viewers for commercial gain by confusion, constituting registration and use in bad faith." What a BS. According to Ranjan Narula, only domains for which there are no registered trademarks anywhere in the world can be monetized via PPC? He should have read tons of UDRP decisions where it was ruled that owning TM merely doesn't give the Complainant rights to the disputed domain name and that PPC monetization is a bona-fide use in case of "trademarked" domains, if domains are generic in nature and PPC ads don't relate to the Complainant and/or its business. In his turn, the arbitrator had no finding that PPC ads served on Hottie.in were related to the Complainant and/or its business. Even the Complainant contends that PPC ads served on Hottie.in are not related to its business. They were adult-related, and "hottie" may have adult sense pretty much. I'm personally against any adult content on the web, but trying to take the domain away from rightful owner on the base of false allegations is much worse. Many people wonder all the time why there is no much interest to .in domains from foreign medium/high level domain investors. The reason is INDRP arbitration is a joke as it was again proven in the Hottie.in case by the arbitrator Ranjan Narula. In this regard, I was always wondering why INDRP arbitrators were/are being invited to the domain conferences all the time. They no doubt enjoy such "vacations", being honored and invited to sit among domain gurus etc., but most of them in fact are domainers non-friendly. What is the point to spend money on them? Imho almost all of them should have been ignored, and only those who were proven to rule honestly and competently in INDRP cases can be allowed to be among invited guests, speakers etc.