Ceres
New Member
No surprise that Nestle, the well-known makers of Nescafe coffee, won Nescafe.co.in in the latest INDRP case.
On two occasions, Nestle hired a third party to seek out the intentions of the respondent, wherein the respondent agreed to sell the domain. However, in its complaint Nestle stated the sale price exceeded its out-of-pocket costs and no transaction proceeded.
The respondent changed the whois owner quite a few times, although the address always remained the same. This includes changing the owner to "Nescafe Limited" on a few occasions - that's the reason why the respondent in this case is "Nescafe Limited."
In its complaint, Nestle points out that the respondent's address is the same as the respondent's address in the INDRP cases of KFC.co.in and TacoBell.co.in (owner name is different). The Arbitrator stated that this inferred a pattern of similar conduct by the respondent[FONT="].[/FONT] The Arbitrator also viewed the respondent's various aliases as a form of cyber flight.
The respondent filed no response in this case.
On two occasions, Nestle hired a third party to seek out the intentions of the respondent, wherein the respondent agreed to sell the domain. However, in its complaint Nestle stated the sale price exceeded its out-of-pocket costs and no transaction proceeded.
The respondent changed the whois owner quite a few times, although the address always remained the same. This includes changing the owner to "Nescafe Limited" on a few occasions - that's the reason why the respondent in this case is "Nescafe Limited."
In its complaint, Nestle points out that the respondent's address is the same as the respondent's address in the INDRP cases of KFC.co.in and TacoBell.co.in (owner name is different). The Arbitrator stated that this inferred a pattern of similar conduct by the respondent[FONT="].[/FONT] The Arbitrator also viewed the respondent's various aliases as a form of cyber flight.
The respondent filed no response in this case.
Last edited by a moderator: