Reliance loses 15 year old domain name case

In Reliance Telecom Limited vs. Domains ByProxy.com and Sukhraj Randhawa Case No. D2013-1470 Reliance Telecom Limited, an off-shoot of the Reliance Group lost an international arbitration under the Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy on the name RelianceGroup.com which was registered on September 21, 1997.

The Domain Name in dispute redirects users to a website (“Respondent’s Website”) that appears to be a parking page maintained by the Registrar,  containing advertisements for financial services that appear to be completely unrelated to the Complainant.

It was held that the complainant did not provide any reason as to why there was a delay of more tsidney-harris-it-was-the-only-domain-name-they-had-left-new-yorker-cartoonhan 15 years in filling a complaint. Referring to another case, AVN Media Network, Inc. v. Hossam Shaltout, WIPO Case No. D2007-1011 it was stated thatthe longer the time a disputed domain name has been registered, the more difficult it is for a complainant to prove bad faith registration’. Furthermore, there was no evidence that the Respondent had engaged in a pattern of conduct of registering domain names (including the Domain Name) to prevent trade mark owners from registering a corresponding domain name.

Further, it was held that there was no evidence that the Respondent had ever registered a domain name other than the concerned Domain Name and also that the Respondent had registered the Domain Name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor: the Complainant and the Respondent were not competitors.

There were no circumstances that indicated that the Respondent had registered the Domain Name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the Domain Name registration to the Complainant. The Domain Name had been registered for more than 16 years, and there was no evidence that the Respondent had ever attempted to sell the Domain Name.

By reason of the limited evidence provided by the parties, the Panel found that the Complainant had not satisfied its burden of showing that circumstances that bring the case within the provisions of paragraph 4(b) of the Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy exist, or other facts showing that Respondent registered the Domain Name in bad faith.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: