The case of fls.in (Telepathy vs Directi,NIXI,Registry,Arbitrator,Complainant)

kriss05

Well-Known Member
Country flag
There is interesting case regarding fls.in

The owner, Telepathy Inc, was hit with INDRP complaint and, of course, lost: https://registry.in/system/files/flsin.pdf

But Telepathy filed lawsuit at the Bombay High Court Under Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 and won: link

It also seems that Telepathy settled the dispute with the complainant out of court: link

Thus, Telepathy has shown one of the way to save domains lost in INDRP disputes.
 

Jeff

Administrator
Staff member
Country flag
Interesting find - thanks!

It looks like Telepathy lost the INDRP because they didn't reply, and went to court on the ground that they did not receive proper notice of the documents at arbitration. From the court decision:

This breach, in my view, goes to the root of the matter and basically against the mandate of the Arbitration Act and INDRP Rules, apart from principle of natural justice. No mandatory notices issued, as contemplated under the Rules. Mere issuance itself is not sufficient. Those notices ought to have been served and must have been recorded accordingly, before passing such drastic award against the unserved “Registrant” (owner) of the domain name. This is impermissible and it is contrary to the provisions of law and the record. Therefore, I am inclined to interfere with the award so passed, also on merits, as the same was without giving equal opportunity to the Petitioner in breach of principle of “natural justice”, “fair opportunity”, “equal treatment to the parties” and above all “policy”.

So, the issue really boils down to procedural irregularities during this specific INDRP case.
 

kriss05

Well-Known Member
Country flag
Meanwhile I found out that there was separate lawsuit regarding fls.co.in, also won by Telepathy at the Bombay High Court. It is interesting read which sheds light on this story. Link

Some important points made by the judge:

14. Perusal of the record clearly indicates that the entire award of the
learned arbitrator is totally one sided. None of the submissions/contentions
raised by the petitioner in response to the complaint has at all been
considered by the learned arbitrator.

15. In my view, the learned arbitrator has rendered the impugned
award in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. Learned arbitrator
was bound to consider the issues and submissions raised by the petitioner in
response to the complaint which was admittedly on record before the learned
arbitrator. In my view, the learned arbitrator has not treated both the parties
equally.
 

kriss05

Well-Known Member
Country flag
BTW, there is another lll.in, mgp.in, which has been lost in INDRP, yet it is not being transferred since October 2011 (INDRP decision date). Accordingly, it is locked as in case of pending dispute.

https://registry.in/system/files/mgpin.pdf

That said, this case probably has been brought to court by domain owner as well.
 

Kokoro

Member
Some important points made by the judge:

14. Perusal of the record clearly indicates that the entire award of the
learned arbitrator is totally one sided. None of the submissions/contentions
raised by the petitioner in response to the complaint has at all been
considered by the learned arbitrator.

15. In my view, the learned arbitrator has rendered the impugned
award in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. Learned arbitrator
was bound to consider the issues and submissions raised by the petitioner in
response to the complaint which was admittedly on record before the learned
arbitrator. In my view, the learned arbitrator has not treated both the parties
equally.

That actually can be applied to many other controversial cases as well.
 

domainpundit

Active Member
Country flag
Thanks for sharing

IMHO... INDRP is not matured at all.. A so called TM holder in any of the 44 categories files a INDRP they will win the name irrespective of what the domain status .. I hope at least the Arbitrators start understanding the rules of INDRP process and start respecting them if they really care for the .in extension.

its one of the 1500+ extensions at moment, domain investors are very much part of the eco system of domain extension and contribute to the promotion of extension, so the arbitrators shouldn't start the case with the assumption that every domain investor is a cyber squatter and will have a bad faith while owning them.

the chances of losing INDRP is 1% for the complainant if you carefully assess the historical evidences we have for last few years hence I am not surprised with the fls.in case and other controversial decisions including mgp.in

I am glad that Nat has challenged this and proven arbitrators are not always right :)

Well done Nat.

P.s: As a true .IN domain extension lover, I hope the .IN registry will do some thing to protect the domain owners interests too.
 
Last edited:
Similar threads
Thread starter Title Forum Replies Date
Digital Pandit Verisign seems hopeful after decision reached in .web gTLD case Registrars 0
Digital Pandit IP lobby demands halt to Whois reform in Org's case Registrars 0
Digital Pandit This is a very unique and confusing case Legal Issues and Dispute 0
Digital Pandit SiteLock v. GoDaddy case is getting uglier by the day Legal Issues and Dispute 0
Digital Pandit DNW Podcast: Domain Investing case study with Mark Levine Resources 0
Digital Pandit RIP .case, .caseih and .newholland New GTLDs 0
Digital Pandit WIPO had to deal with 50,000th cybersquatting case over two decades Legal Issues and Dispute 0
Digital Pandit RDNH alert in the GreenGlobe.com case Legal Issues and Dispute 0
Digital Pandit The interesting case of .bible domain name promoter going bust New GTLDs 0
Digital Pandit Complainant submitted falsified documents in cheapstuff.com UDRP case Legal Issues and Dispute 0
Digital Pandit Here is how you can whip an invoice just in case a buyer wants one Resources 0
Digital Pandit Geico wins WIPO case Legal Issues and Dispute 0
Digital Pandit Instagram LLC created WIPO case for Instagram.biz Legal Issues and Dispute 0
Digital Pandit Doxing goes beyond the free speech line in UDRP case Legal Issues and Dispute 0
Digital Pandit Podcast Alert !! : ICA general counsel Zak Muscovitch discusses the case of booking.com at SCOTUS Resources 0
Digital Pandit D’Agostinos Markets, Inc. files a cybersquatting case and loses it Legal Issues and Dispute 0
Digital Pandit The curious case of a $2,500 dotOrg domain name Non-Indian Domains 0
Digital Pandit PureTalk sues to upgrade its domain name after it lost a UDRP case Legal Issues and Dispute 0
Digital Pandit Cybersquatting case to get SixthStreet.com Legal Issues and Dispute 0
Digital Pandit Naturals.com subject of WIPO case; Complainant uses Naturals.in Legal Issues and Dispute 0
Digital Pandit Oregan man found guilty of RDNH in pickleball cybersquatting case Legal Issues and Dispute 0
Digital Pandit Mike Mann successfully defends the domain name Tergus.com in a UDRP case Legal Issues and Dispute 0
Digital Pandit SiteTools, Inc. saved Pocketbook.com in a UDRP case Legal Issues and Dispute 0
Digital Pandit France’s appeal in France.com case rejected Legal Issues and Dispute 0
Digital Pandit AbdulBasit Makrani wins AguaDulce.com domain reverse domain name hijacking case Legal Issues and Dispute 0
Digital Pandit JUUL cybersquatting case is interesting Legal Issues and Dispute 0
Digital Pandit UDRP case against ABC.net Legal Issues and Dispute 0
Digital Pandit John Colascione: Seven Days Remain to State Your Case on Price Cap Removal for Legacy Domains Resources 0
Digital Pandit Respondent in the UDRP case against the RosettaStone.app does to US court Legal Issues and Dispute 0
Digital Pandit Trump emerges victorious in Michael Gleissner Vs Trump trademark case Legal Issues and Dispute 0
Digital Pandit Again a reverse domain name hijacking case from Brazil Legal Issues and Dispute 0
Digital Pandit Google lands a fine of €1.49 billion in Adsense antitrust case Registrars 0
Digital Pandit Karma.com UDRP case ends in Reverse Domain Name Hijacking finding Legal Issues and Dispute 0
Digital Pandit New Verdict: No reverse domain name hijacking in VDG.com case Legal Issues and Dispute 0
CyberKing The curious case of Internet.IN from 2011 Legal Issues and Dispute 0
CyberKing StandardElectricals.in - Open and Shut Case Legal Issues and Dispute 0
CyberKing A case for IDNs and INDIC The Lounge 1
CyberKing Showcase - A dot IN case study (EnergyFactor.IN) General Indian Domain Name Discussion 0
CyberKing StarPoker.in - A curious case of RDNH? Legal Issues and Dispute 1
Jeff Mitsu Case Update General Indian Domain Name Discussion 155
domainking131 Telepathy scores $40,000 from reverse domain name hijacking case Legal Issues and Dispute 0
domainking131 $65,000 legal fees awarded in reverse domain name hijacking case Legal Issues and Dispute 0
domainking131 Reverse domain name hijacking in HUG.com case Legal Issues and Dispute 0
K NNCC.in INDRP case decision has been published: 4L.in domain investors beware! Legal Issues and Dispute 12
domainking131 Go Daddy Wins Court Case Most Thought They would lose Non-Indian Domains 0
domainking131 Domain holder loses UDRP: Files case over DirectorsChoice.com Non-Indian Domains 0
CyberKing This VELCRO.IN case was a good read..... Legal Issues and Dispute 2
domainking131 ICANN declares that ccTLD is not a property in case of Iran ccTLD dispute Non-Indian Domains 0
CyberKing How NOT to respond to a INDRP case complaint Legal Issues and Dispute 7
domainking131 Donald Trump of 'The Apprentice' gets $32,000 in cybersquatting case Non-Indian Domains 0

Similar threads

whois



Forums dedicated to Indian domain names, including buying, selling, appraising, developing, and monetizing.

About Us

Threads
27,896
Messages
74,989
Members
7,703
Latest member
robin1212
Top Bottom