LUtHrA & LUtHrA
The .in registry, the body responsible for the In order to fulfil the criteria contained in paragraph
registration and dispute resolution of .in ccTLD 4(i) of the INDRP, the complainant has to establish:
(country code top level domain) in India,
(a) rights in the relevant mark; and (b) that the
published its .IN Dispute Resolution Policy
registrant’s domain name is identical or confusingly
(INDRP) in 2005. The INDRP empowers the
similar to the said mark.
registry to adjudicate disputes and lays down
certain conditions for registration, cancellation
A complainant may claim either common law
and transfer of .in domain names. The policy
rights or statutory rights. The use of offending
sits within the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,
domain names to offer dissimilar goods or services
1996. INDRP differs from the UDRP (Uniform
has been curbed and the concept of ‘initial interest
Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy) in
confusion’ recognised under UDRP has been
that it involves personal hearings, extended adopted as well. The test of confusing similarity
pleas and applies the Indian Evidence Act, 1897 depends on a comparison of the impugned marks,
to cases. and the content of the website in question is also
material in determining confusing similarity.
The INDRP states that certain conditions
must be satisfied by a complainant seeking the The policy seeks to exclude cases (paragraph
cancellation or transfer of a .in domain name: 7) where the registrant has: (a) made bona fide
demonstrable preparations to use the domain name
• The domain name is identical or confusingly
or a name corresponding to the domain name
similar to a name, trademark or service
before the notice of the dispute; or (b) a genuine
mark to which the complainant has rights
dispute regarding the rights in the mark exists;
(paragraph 4(i))
or (c) demonstrated that the use of the domain
• The registrant has no rights or legitimate
name is non-commercial and legitimate, as these
interests in respect of the domain name
circumstances indicate that the act of registration
(paragraph 4(ii)), and was not merely for the purpose of cybersquatting.
• The registrant’s domain name has been The burden of proof on a complainant to prove lack
registered or is being used in bad faith of rights or a legitimate interest in the mark is light.
(paragraph 4(ii)). This is because the nature of the registrant’s rights
www.worldipreview.com World Intellectual property review September/October 2009 39
Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84