• Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

DomainLawyer

  • Home
  • Domain Name
    • Domain WHOIS
    • Case Studies
  • Services
    • Domain Investigations
  • Domain Disputes
    • UDRP
    • INDRP
  • Blog
  • Contact
You are here: Home / Blog / Successfully defended client in Domain Dispute of DIGEL.com against German Company

By Domain Lawyer Leave a Comment

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

Successfully Defended client in UDRP proceedings at WIPO against German Company Digel Aktiengesellschaft in DIGEL.com domain dispute. 

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/

Filed Under: Blog

Reader Interactions

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Primary Sidebar

Blog Posts

KalyanJewellers.com successfully defended under UDRP before WIPO

Successfully defended UDRP matter of KalyanJewellers.com against Kalyan Jewellers India Limited. Kalyan Jewellers currently use KalyanJewellers.net, while kalyanjewellers.in already registered by another Kalyan Jewellers from Mumbai. Recently, Kalyan Jewellers also filed for DHRP for Rs 1750 crore. Undoubtedly, Kalyan Jewellers has a huge reputation in India but it has grown since 2012-13 only, while they […]

Enow.in successfully defended against Bennett Coleman & Co.

Bennett Coleman & Co., India’s Biggest Media House, filed INDRP / Domain Name Dispute over domain name Enow.in in February 2020 as they have a TV Program by similar name and similar Trademarks Now, ETNow, TimesNow, MoviesNow, RomedyNow and MirrorNow. While the Respondent Company Sarv Webs Pvt Ltd, a cloud based hosting Company was making […]

Successfully defended premium domain name NATURALS.com

CyLaw Solutions successfully defended NATURALS.com in UDRP proceedings. The Complaint was brought by Naturals India. The disputed domain name had domain registration year as 2001, while the Naturals India presence can be seen for the first time in 2007, as per Archive.org. The Complaint has been rightly denied as no Bad Faith could be proved […]

Footer

Domain Lawyer

DomainLawyer.in is a service by Cylaw Solutions to help you with Domain Name Disputes (UDRP/INDRP) and other Domain Name consultancy matters. Kindly contact us here for a quick response.

What’s New !

Successfully defended UDRP matter of KalyanJewellers.com against Kalyan Jewellers India Limited. Kalyan Jewellers currently use KalyanJewellers.net, … [Read More...] about KalyanJewellers.com successfully defended under UDRP before WIPO

Links

  • Information Technology Act
  • INDRP
  • UDRP
  • CyberLaw News
  • Legal Pages
  • Home
  • Domain Name
  • Services
  • Domain Disputes
  • Blog
  • Contact

Copyright © 2023 · LegalSolutions.in · Log in