WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Maruti Udyog Limited v Maruti Infotech
Case No. D2000 0520
1. The Parties
Complainant: Maruti Udyog Limited of 11th Floor, Jeevan Prakash, 25, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi - 110001 India represented by Mr. A. K. Bansal of B-47, Lajpat Nagar - 1, New Delhi-110024 India.
Respondent: Maruti Infotech of 156 M.G. Road, Suite No. 204 Calcutta, West Bengal-700007 India.
2. The Domain Name(s) and Registrar(s)
Domain Name:
Registrar: Network Solutions Inc.
3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed on May 29, 2000. WIPO verified that the Complaint satisfies the Rules and the Supplemental Rules and that payment was properly made. The panelist is satisfied this is the case.
The Complaint was properly notified in accordance with Rules, paragraph 2 (a). No formal Response was filed by the Respondent. The Respondent is in default.
The administrative panel was properly constituted. The undersigned panelist submitted a Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence.
No further submissions were received by WIPO or the Panel as a consequence of which the date scheduled for the issuance of the Panel's decision was July 26, 2000.
4. Factual Background
The Complainant is the owner of registered trademarks for MARUTI in many countries worldwide including India.
5. Parties' Contentions
A. Complainant
The Complainant states that:
i) The word MARUTI is a well known corporate name exclusively associated with the Complainant;
ii) The company Maruti Limited was incorporated in India in 1971, and the trademark MARUTI has been used with respect to vehicles, bus bodies, automobile parts and fittings there since 1976. On October 30, 1980, the Central Legislature (Parliament) of India passed the Maruti Limited (Acquisition and transfer of undertaking) Act 1980, which acquired the undertaking of this company. The Complainant was incorporated in 1981, as an Indian government company to modernize the Indian automobile industry and production of fuel efficient vehicles;
iii) The Complainant's total issued and paid up equity is Rs 1322.92 Million. Since December 1983, the complainant has sold 2.9 million vehicles including domestic sales of 1,547,184 vehicles and export of 103,642 vehicles to 36 countries. The trademark MARUTI is displayed prominently on the Complainant's products. The Complainant is also the owner of several other domain names containing the MARUTI mark;
iv) A man of average intelligence and imperfect recollection would be confused between the domain name and the Complainant's trade mark MARUTI;
v) The Respondent is not making any legitimate use of the Domain Name;
vi) The Respondent is Indian and the Complainant has a regional office and the showrooms of its dealer in Calcutta where the Respondent is based. The Respondent is therefore well aware of the tremendous reputation of the Complainant's mark. The Respondent has demanded 100,000 Rs to transfer the name to the Complainant. The domain has been registered and used in bad faith.
B. Respondent
The Respondent sent an e-mail to WIPO on June 6, 2000, saying that it would be willing to transfer the name to the Complainant for 150,000 Rs or USD 3,300, but no settlement has been reached. The Respondent has not filed a formal Response and is in default.
6. Discussion and Findings
According to paragraph 4(a) of the Uniform Dispute Resolution Procedure
Policy, the Complainant must prove that:
i) The Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and
ii) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
iii) The Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith;
A. Identical or confusing similarity
It is prima facie obvious that the Domain Name is virtually identical to the Complainant's MARUTI mark and therefore that they are confusingly similar.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interest of the Respondent
The Respondent has not filed a Response and does not appear to have any rights or legitimate interest in the Domain Name.
C. Bad Faith
Paragraph 4 (b) of the Rules sets out four non exclusive criteria which shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith including "the Respondent has registered or has acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trade mark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant for valuable consideration in excess of the Respondent's documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name". In the absence of a Response from the Respondent, there appears to be no explanation of the facts other than that the Respondent registered the Complainant's trade marks as domain names with an intent to use them to demand unwarranted profit in bad faith and that the Respondent has so used the Domain Name in question.
7. Decision
In the light of the foregoing, the panelist decides that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trade mark and the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests relating to the Domain Name which was registered and used in bad faith.
Accordingly, in the light of the above, the panelist requires that the registration of the Domain Name MARUTI.ORG BE TRANSFERRED to the Complainant.
Dawn Osborne
Presiding Panelist
Dated: July 26, 2000
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy