TATA WINS DOMAIN NAME "TATA.ORG"

Yet  another win for an Indian Corporate comes in the field of domain names. The domain  name "tata.org"  has been  legally  won by  Tata Sons Ltd. In  a recent decision dated 4.4.2000,the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center in its administration panel decision of even date has held that the domain name "tata.org" standing  in  the  name of  The Advanced Information Technology Association, Mumbai should be transferred to the complainant being Tata Sons Ltd.
                                                                                                                                      
In  the  present case, the complainant,   Tata Sons Ltd., filed their complaint with WIPO  Arbitration and Mediation Centre on 19.2.2000 under the Uniform Domain Name  Dispute Resolution Policy, Rules and  supplemental rules made thereunder. The  respondent  in the  case  namely  The Advanced Information Technology Association,  Mumbai  was duly  served by email, facsimile and by courier service.  The  respondent  did  not  choose  to  contest the complaint and as such the respondent was proceeded ex-parte. 

Under  the  provisions of the  aforesaid rules, if a respondent does not submit a response,  in  the  absence  of  exceptional  circumstances,  the panel  shall decide the dispute based upon the complaint. As such, the WIPO Centre  panel decided the case on the basis of the complaint.

>From the perusal the complaint  as also the  documentary  and  other evidence placed  on the  record,  the  WIPO   Center  came  to  the  conclusion that the name/mark TATA  is  a "well-known" mark  and  that  the  said  mark  has been granted protection by means of various orders passed by various courts in India.

It was further held "The mark/name TATA is synonymous with quality products and  the  same  signifies  a  sense  of reliability. Consumers from all classes of society   consisting  of  urban, rural,  semi-urban etc.,  are  familiar  with  the TATA mark/name.  The  word  TATA  apart  from  being a rare surname, has no obvious meaning and is entitled to a very high degree of protection". 

The WIPO Centre concluded that since the respondent belongs to the same city as  that  of  the  complainant,  the  respondent  is obviously aware of the long standing, enormous reputation of the name TATA and has adopted an identical domain name.  The  WIPO  Center  further  held  that  the respondent is merely "hoarding"  the  said  domain  name  as  is clear  from the fact that though the domain  name  was  registered  about  3  years  back,  the  same  had not been activated  till date.  The  WIPO  Center  further  held  that  even  if a  website under the  domain  name had been activated, in the facts and circumstances of the case,  it would be still constitute dishonest adoption and misappropriation. 

The  WIPO  center  further  agreed  with the complainant that the respondent's domain  name  "tata.org"  is  identical  to  the  trade  mark  TATA in which the complainant  has  rights and  that  the  respondent  has not legitimate interest in the said domain name.  The  WIPO  Centre  further  came  to the categorical conclusion  that  the  registration  of the  domain  name  "tata.org"  is  a "bad faith registration"  as  potential  customers  would  be  induced to subscribe to the services of the impugned websites  or  to  deal  in  some  matter  with the respondent  believing  them  to  be  licensed  or  authorized  by  or  having  a direct nexus or affiliation with or endorsed by the complainant.

The  said  decision  by  the  WIPO   Arbitration  and  Mediation  Center  is  of tremendous  importance  with  specific  reference  to  the  context of India as lots of  people  have  deliberately  indulged  themselves  in  cybersquatting in the  hope  of  earning  quick  millions.  The  judicial   principles of "hoarding", "dishonest adoption" and "misappropriation of domain  name" as spelt out  by this  judgement  are  likely  to  have  a  far  reaching  consequence for further domain name dispute litigations in the country.  The   said judgement has also gone  ahead  to  establish  another  important principle  in this emerging field of  law  that  if  the  cybersquatter  is  based  in  the  same  city  in which the complainant  is  also  based  or  has  a  presence   there in,   then it has to be presumed  that  the  cybersquatter is and would be aware of  the reputation of the  name  /trademark/businessmark/  housemark/   corporate  name   of   the  complainant   when  he  adopts  an  identical   domain  name. Further the said judgement lays  down that the  operation or  otherwise of a website, under the said domain name, would not change the  factum of coming  to the conclusion of dishonest adoption and misappropriation of the domain name. The previous judicial recognition of  the  complainant's domain name in  different litigations have  been  made  as a very sound basis by the WIPO Centre for arriving at the conclusion about the  recognition  of  the   complainant's   rights  in  the impugned name/trademark/businessmark/ housemark/corporate name. 

This  decision  in  case No.  D2000-0049   marks  an important  chapter  in the growth  of  the  relevant  principles  of law  concerning  domain name disputes resolution with specific reference to India.