• Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
  • Home
  • Blogging
  • Law
    • Consumer Law
      • Sify BroadBand
    • Cyber Law
  • Technology
    • Internet
    • Software
    • WordPress
  • News
  • Quotes
  • Others
    • Economy
      • Stock Markets
    • Entertainment
      • Humour
      • Movies & Television
      • Music
    • Photography
    • Sports
      • Cricket
      • Football
  • Press
    • Mumbai Mirror…
  • Contact

Blog.Guru

Blog.Guru

You are here: Home / Technology / Domain Names / Successfully defended client in Domain Dispute of DIGEL.com against German Company
Successfully defended client in Domain Dispute of DIGEL.com against German Company

Successfully defended client in Domain Dispute of DIGEL.com against German Company

8/18/2018 By Blogger Leave a Comment

Successfully Defended US client in UDRP (Domain Name Disputes) proceedings at WIPO against German Company Digel Aktiengesellschaft for the Domain Name DIGEL.com.

Digel Aktiengesellschaft v. Vinay Shan

Case No. D2018-1328

1. The Parties:

The Complainant is Digel Aktiengesellschaft of Nagold, Germany, represented by Witte, Weller & Partner, Germany.

The Respondent is Vinay Shan of Gurgaon, India, represented by Ankur Raheja of Cylaw Solutions, India.

2. Facts:

The Complainant owns a number of trade mark registrations for DIGEL in various classes relevant to its activities including class 25 (clothing) and class 18 (leather bags, wallets and purses). The Complainant also owns a domain name, <digel.de>, which resolves to a website promoting its products.

Prior to 2006, the Complainant’s international and national trade mark registrations covered many countries in Europe as well as, amongst other countries, China, the United Arab Emirates, the Russian Federation, Egypt and Ukraine. It obtained a trade mark registration for DIGEL in the United States of America (“USA”), as part of an international registration, in September 2014 and a trade mark registration in Canada in April 2017.

The disputed domain name was registered on July 11, 2006. It resolves to a website offering it for sale. Between March and April 2018 negotiations for the purchase of the disputed domain name took place between an Internet service provider, which was acting on behalf of an unnamed party (this being the Complainant) and a registrar acting on behalf of the Respondent. The Respondent sought USD 29,000 for the disputed domain name. However, the most the Complainant was willing to pay was USD 12,000 and, accordingly, the parties did not reach agreement.

3. Decision:

(i) The disputed domain name is identical to a trade mark in which the Complainant has rights.

(ii) The Panel accordingly finds that there is no basis for finding that the Respondent knew, or could reasonably have been expected to know, of the Complainant or its rights in DIGEL as at the date of its registration of the disputed domain name in 2006. The Respondent’s assertion that it registered the disputed domain name because it might be of interest to multiple parties is credible. Having regard to the general approach of previous UDRP panels to this issue, as outlined above, its registration and offer for sale of the disputed domain name is considered to comprise a bona fide offer of goods and services.

The Complainant has not made out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests. But, even if it had, the Respondent’s evidence is sufficient to rebut any burden of production on the Respondent’s part. The Panel accordingly finds that the Complainant has failed to establish that the Respondent lacks any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

(iii) If the Respondent was unaware of the Complainant and its DIGEL trade mark as at the date of registration of the disputed domain name, as the Panel has found, it follows that the Respondent cannot have registered or acquired the disputed domain name for the purpose of selling or transferring it to the Complainant or a competitor of it. For that reason, the fact that the Respondent was plainly seeking in negotiations a sum in excess of its out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name does not assist the Complainant. None of the other circumstances which are, without limitation, set out at paragraph 4(b) as pointing to bad faith registration and use, are either alleged by the Complainant or are of application on these facts. The Complainant has therefore also failed to establish that the disputed domain name was registered and used by the Respondent in bad faith.

For the foregoing reasons, the Complaint is denied !

Read Complete decision @ https://www.indrp.com/germany-based-digel-loses-udrp-over-digel-com-domainer-rights-to-sell-upheld/

Related Posts:

  • Nalli.com (India) files for UDRP/Domain Dispute over NalliGroup.com
    Nalli.com (India) files for UDRP/Domain Dispute over…
  • OYO Rooms first UDRP - OYOLIFE.com
    OYO Rooms first UDRP - OYOLIFE.com
  • Speaker at NamesCon 2018 with Attorney Zak Muscovitch
    Speaker at NamesCon 2018 with Attorney Zak Muscovitch
  • Domain Dispute Decisions (including DollarCity.com)
    Domain Dispute Decisions (including DollarCity.com)

Filed Under: Domain Names

Reader Interactions

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Primary Sidebar

What’s New !

Net4 India Limited / Net4.com – Undergoing Resolution Process

Podcast.com starts redirecting to Amazon’s Audible !

OYO Rooms first UDRP – OYOLIFE.com

Nalli.com (India) files for UDRP/Domain Dispute over NalliGroup.com

Amazon Order No 871-1551161-6225925 – A Scam

About

This blog was originally launched on 15 August 2004, more than 15 years back, at a .com domain in the personal name of the author. The Hello World post is available here.

Keep up with he latest updates from this Blog. Sign up below with your email address to receive updates !

Tags

Admissions Advocate ATM Authority Bank Citibank Commands Consumer Court Credit Card Delhi Fraud High Court Hindi Medium ICICI ICICI bank India Infomedia Law Linux Love Lyrics Mobile Movie PHP PIL Programming School Supreme Court

Footer

  • Home
  • About
  • Law Guru
  • Cyber Guru
  • Security Guru
  • Disclaimer
  • Contact

Comments

  • Sanjay Mishra on IITs Blacklist startup and others over placement complaints from students
  • Blog.Guru on Spamming by ShopAtBest.com / Door2Inbox.com
  • Noyon Jyoti Parasara on Spamming by ShopAtBest.com / Door2Inbox.com
  • Blog.Guru on Spamming by ShopAtBest.com / Door2Inbox.com
  • Blog.Guru on Hindi Medium – Harsh Reality of Delhi School Admissions

Search this site…

Copyright © 2023 All Rights Reserved · Blog.Guru · Log in