Ceres
New Member
The respondent in this INDRP case won the right to keep the domain Chiesi.in even though it did not file a response. The complainant failed to provide sufficient evidence to support its case. A summary of the case is found below.
The complainant is Chiesi Farmaceutici S.p.A., an Italian pharmaceutical company that develops and sells pharmaceutical products worldwide.
The respondent is BrandConcern BV (based in Netherlands). It seems to be some kind of branding company which owns nearly 800 domains. A Google search reveals that this company is part of the Lambretta Consortium.
My understanding is that CHIESI is a surname. When the complainant contacted the respondent, it requested €10,000 for the domain name.
According to the complainant, after it had filed the INDRP complaint, the respondent applied for a trademark for "CHI ESI" branded goods. The complainant alleges that these are "fake" goods. There was also a brief change in the Whois but it reverted back to the original respondent.
Although the complainant owns many trademark registrations/applications worldwide that include the word CHIESI, it failed to produce evidence showing it had acquired exclusive rights in India for the word "CHIESI." The complainant argued that its main product in India is CUROSURF and that the packaging carries its CHIESI logo.
The Arbitrator stated that:
When I check Google's Keywords Adwords tool, neither CHIESI nor CUROSURF have a high search volume in India. Some of the "Chisei" searches relate to the complainant, however many do not.
I think this was a fair decision by the Arbitrator due to the lack of evidence by the complainant. In the past, I've been concerned that complainants have succeeded with their cases even though they failed to provide sufficient evidence showing they'd acquired exclusive rights over a name in India. Therefore, it was good to read this decision today.
What are your thoughts on this INDRP decision?
The complainant is Chiesi Farmaceutici S.p.A., an Italian pharmaceutical company that develops and sells pharmaceutical products worldwide.
The respondent is BrandConcern BV (based in Netherlands). It seems to be some kind of branding company which owns nearly 800 domains. A Google search reveals that this company is part of the Lambretta Consortium.
My understanding is that CHIESI is a surname. When the complainant contacted the respondent, it requested €10,000 for the domain name.
According to the complainant, after it had filed the INDRP complaint, the respondent applied for a trademark for "CHI ESI" branded goods. The complainant alleges that these are "fake" goods. There was also a brief change in the Whois but it reverted back to the original respondent.
Although the complainant owns many trademark registrations/applications worldwide that include the word CHIESI, it failed to produce evidence showing it had acquired exclusive rights in India for the word "CHIESI." The complainant argued that its main product in India is CUROSURF and that the packaging carries its CHIESI logo.
The Arbitrator stated that:
The Arbitrator had even requested additional submissions from the complainant, but these still did not contain evidence to support the complainant's case.
When I check Google's Keywords Adwords tool, neither CHIESI nor CUROSURF have a high search volume in India. Some of the "Chisei" searches relate to the complainant, however many do not.
I think this was a fair decision by the Arbitrator due to the lack of evidence by the complainant. In the past, I've been concerned that complainants have succeeded with their cases even though they failed to provide sufficient evidence showing they'd acquired exclusive rights over a name in India. Therefore, it was good to read this decision today.
What are your thoughts on this INDRP decision?
Last edited by a moderator:
