Ceres
New Member
Another INDRP case has just been decided. It involves the domain Mentis.in.
The complainant own the trademark MENTOS, which is used in association with candy and chewing gum. They assert that MENTIS is confusing similar to MENTOS.
The respondent stated that his company used the domain Mentis.in for "internal process" and in future intended to offer software services in connection with this domain. He submitted evidence of web links to support this assertion.
The Arbitrator dismissed the complainant's claim. He ruled that the respondent had a legitimate interest in the domain Mentis.in, and that it had not been registered in bad faith. There was also no likelihood that consumers would confuse the complainant's candy with the respondent's software.
You can read the decision here: http://www.registry.in/policies/dispute_resolution/dispute_decisions/mentisin.pdf
In my opinion, the Arbitrator was correct in his decision and the reasons he gave for it. What do you think?
The complainant own the trademark MENTOS, which is used in association with candy and chewing gum. They assert that MENTIS is confusing similar to MENTOS.
The respondent stated that his company used the domain Mentis.in for "internal process" and in future intended to offer software services in connection with this domain. He submitted evidence of web links to support this assertion.
The Arbitrator dismissed the complainant's claim. He ruled that the respondent had a legitimate interest in the domain Mentis.in, and that it had not been registered in bad faith. There was also no likelihood that consumers would confuse the complainant's candy with the respondent's software.
You can read the decision here: http://www.registry.in/policies/dispute_resolution/dispute_decisions/mentisin.pdf
In my opinion, the Arbitrator was correct in his decision and the reasons he gave for it. What do you think?
Last edited by a moderator:
