OK, nncc.in indrp case is on the registry website now.
What can I say. WOW. The case is a bit complicated, but the decision ruled by V. Shrivastav is incredibly poor. Just look at V. Shrivastav's ruling:
"The contention of the respondents is that the complainants have no presence in India and are only active in United States of America bears no fruit as there is nothing in Rule 4, 6 & 7 of INDRP which mandates that a person is required to have localized trademark for claiming the benefit under Rule 4 (i). All that the rule says is that a person is required to either have a pre existing domain name or a trademark similar to a disputed domain name. The said rule does not, as stated above, put any rider or a provisio vis-à-vis having a trademark registered with local trade marks authority."
So, now if I just have a shitty TM registered somewhere in USA/Zimbabwe/whatever, I can claim matching .in domain, and the INDRP arbitrators will give it to me? What a BS. Someone please demand V. Shrivastav to at least read previous INDRP case decisions, for example, case of chiesi.in:
"The disputed domain name <chiesi.in> is an intellectual property in India and it is established that this kind of intellectual property is territorial in nature. It is common knowledge that a single domain name may be registered in different countries by different persons, each distinguished by appropriate country codes such as .in, .us, .ca etc.
5.3 Therefore, Complainant has to plead and establish that:
(a) Complainant is the proprietor of a trade mark or a domain name; he is using his trade mark or domain name in India and the disputed domain name violates his proprietary rights in India; or
(b) Complainant has proprietary rights in a trade mark or a domain name in a country other than India, such trade mark or domain name has gained enormous reputation in that country, such reputation spreads into India and the trade mark or domain name is well known in India, and the disputed domain name violates his well known reputation in India and its proprietary rights in his trade mark or domain name."
It is evident that the complainant has no active presence in India, neither it is well-known in India. Actually, NNCC is not known in India at all! Alexa shows 100% of traffic to nncc-exam.org comes from US. Also, the complainant's claim that Google shows links to the complainant alone when searching for "NNCC" is simply a lie! I spent just few minutes to get it. Just google "NNCC",an you will see many other entities named NNCC. On the first page of Google results you will see the link to - WOW! - NNCC - National Nursing Centers Consortium which runs nncc.us website. So it means that the arbitrator not just ignored evident lie of the complainant, but also ignored the fact the "NNCC" is also being used by another entity in the USA nursing industry. WTF, what kind of common law rights/trans-border reputation can the complainant claim, if even in the USA, they don't have exclusive rights in "NNCC" acronym even in their nursing business?!
Regarding to the trans-border reputation. If the complainant has no established business in India and people in India are not aware of its existence, what kind of trans-border reputation can the complainant claim? The respondent wrote clearly: the complainant failed to show any proof that it has active presence/established business in India in order to claim common law rights/transborder reputation benefits. I also refer to the above citation from chiesi.in case. But the arbitrator completely ignored this.
Thus, the complainant has no registered TM in India or international TM, no established business/active presence in India, is not known in India at all, has no exclusive rights in "NNCC" acronym even in its own business niche in the USA, and as such has no common law rights/transborder reputation spreading into India, and also directly lied regarding its exclusivity in Google search results. How the arbitrator V. Shrivastav can rule in favor of the complainant under such circumstances? IMHO, it is clearly a reason to sue the complainant/the arbitrator in court, like Nat Cohen did in case of fls.in/fls.co.in domains (remember, he sued INDRP arbitrators as well).
Back to .in domaining. I would say: LLLL.in investors, beware! Any owner of a shitty TM registered worldwide can now try to steal your 4L.in domain via INDRP, and there are arbitrators who will rule in their favor. You will have the only option: to sue them in courts.
What can I say. WOW. The case is a bit complicated, but the decision ruled by V. Shrivastav is incredibly poor. Just look at V. Shrivastav's ruling:
"The contention of the respondents is that the complainants have no presence in India and are only active in United States of America bears no fruit as there is nothing in Rule 4, 6 & 7 of INDRP which mandates that a person is required to have localized trademark for claiming the benefit under Rule 4 (i). All that the rule says is that a person is required to either have a pre existing domain name or a trademark similar to a disputed domain name. The said rule does not, as stated above, put any rider or a provisio vis-à-vis having a trademark registered with local trade marks authority."
So, now if I just have a shitty TM registered somewhere in USA/Zimbabwe/whatever, I can claim matching .in domain, and the INDRP arbitrators will give it to me? What a BS. Someone please demand V. Shrivastav to at least read previous INDRP case decisions, for example, case of chiesi.in:
"The disputed domain name <chiesi.in> is an intellectual property in India and it is established that this kind of intellectual property is territorial in nature. It is common knowledge that a single domain name may be registered in different countries by different persons, each distinguished by appropriate country codes such as .in, .us, .ca etc.
5.3 Therefore, Complainant has to plead and establish that:
(a) Complainant is the proprietor of a trade mark or a domain name; he is using his trade mark or domain name in India and the disputed domain name violates his proprietary rights in India; or
(b) Complainant has proprietary rights in a trade mark or a domain name in a country other than India, such trade mark or domain name has gained enormous reputation in that country, such reputation spreads into India and the trade mark or domain name is well known in India, and the disputed domain name violates his well known reputation in India and its proprietary rights in his trade mark or domain name."
It is evident that the complainant has no active presence in India, neither it is well-known in India. Actually, NNCC is not known in India at all! Alexa shows 100% of traffic to nncc-exam.org comes from US. Also, the complainant's claim that Google shows links to the complainant alone when searching for "NNCC" is simply a lie! I spent just few minutes to get it. Just google "NNCC",an you will see many other entities named NNCC. On the first page of Google results you will see the link to - WOW! - NNCC - National Nursing Centers Consortium which runs nncc.us website. So it means that the arbitrator not just ignored evident lie of the complainant, but also ignored the fact the "NNCC" is also being used by another entity in the USA nursing industry. WTF, what kind of common law rights/trans-border reputation can the complainant claim, if even in the USA, they don't have exclusive rights in "NNCC" acronym even in their nursing business?!
Regarding to the trans-border reputation. If the complainant has no established business in India and people in India are not aware of its existence, what kind of trans-border reputation can the complainant claim? The respondent wrote clearly: the complainant failed to show any proof that it has active presence/established business in India in order to claim common law rights/transborder reputation benefits. I also refer to the above citation from chiesi.in case. But the arbitrator completely ignored this.
Thus, the complainant has no registered TM in India or international TM, no established business/active presence in India, is not known in India at all, has no exclusive rights in "NNCC" acronym even in its own business niche in the USA, and as such has no common law rights/transborder reputation spreading into India, and also directly lied regarding its exclusivity in Google search results. How the arbitrator V. Shrivastav can rule in favor of the complainant under such circumstances? IMHO, it is clearly a reason to sue the complainant/the arbitrator in court, like Nat Cohen did in case of fls.in/fls.co.in domains (remember, he sued INDRP arbitrators as well).
Back to .in domaining. I would say: LLLL.in investors, beware! Any owner of a shitty TM registered worldwide can now try to steal your 4L.in domain via INDRP, and there are arbitrators who will rule in their favor. You will have the only option: to sue them in courts.
Last edited: