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
Country flag
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:

whois



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

About Us

Threads
28,174
Messages
75,330
Members
7,724
Latest member
maithilisharma
Top Bottom