WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Bombay Dyeing & Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. Bharat Kumar
Case No. D2000-0616
1. The Parties
The Complainant is the company secretary of the complainant company, the Bombay Dyeing & Manufacturing Co. Limited with its principal place of business at Neville House, J.N. Heredia Marg Ballard Estate, Mumbay, 400 001, India.
The Respondent is Bharat Kumar with an address at Arihant Complex, Hampi Road, District Bellary, Hospet, Karnataka 583 201, India.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The domain name at issue is "". The Registrar is DotR and is located at 9032 NW, 12th Street, Miami, FL 33172.
3. Procedural History
3.1 The Complaint was received by WIPO by email on June 16, 2000, and in hard copy on June 20, 2000.
3.2 The Center sent to Registrar (Internic) On June 21, 2000, a request for verification of registration data. On July 5, 2000, the Registrar (Internic) confirmed that it is not the Registrar of the domain name in dispute.
3.3 On August 14, 2000, the Center made a second request to Registrar (Internic) for verification of registration data. Registrar (Internic) did not reply.
3.4 On September 20, 2000, the Center sent to the Registrar,
Network Solutions, Inc. a request for verification of registration data. On September 24, 2000, Network Solutions Inc. confirmed that the domain name "B" is registered with DotR.
3.5 On September 28, 2000, the Center sent to DotR a request for verification of registration data. On October 2, 2000, DotR confirmed that it is the Registrar of the domain name in dispute.
3.6 On October 3, 2000, a complaint deficiency Notification was sent to the Complainant for failing to comply with Paragraphs 2(a) and 4 of the Rules for Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy.
3.7 On October 6, 2000, the Complainant re-submitted by e-mail an amended version of the Complaint which satisfied the formal requirement of the Policy, the Rules and the Supplemental Rules and that payment was properly made.
3.8 On October 6, 2000, a notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding was transmitted to the Respondent. A hard copy of the Complaint was subsequently sent to the Respondent on October 9, 2000.
3.9 After receiving a Response on October 19, 2000, the Center sent an acknowledgment of receipt of Response to the Respondent on October 21, 2000.
3.10 On October 30, 2000, notification of the appointment of the Administrative Panel was sent to both the Complainant and Respondent by email. The Notification informed the parties that the Administrative Panel would consist of a single Panelist, Mr. Gary Biesty.
3.11 On November 13, 2000, the Panelist issued a Preliminary Finding and Order which was communicated to the parties by the Center on November 16, 2000.
3.12 On November 27, 2000, the Center received an Amended Complaint which was in compliance with the Preliminary Finding and Order, and which was forwarded and received by the Panelist on February 7, 2001.
3.13. No further submission has been received from the Respondent, however the Panelist is satisfied the Center has notified the Respondent of the Preliminary Finding and Order and the Amended Complaint.
4. Factual Background
4.1 The Complainant is the proprietor and bonafide user of the trademark BOMBAY DYEING which mark has been in continuous use at least since the year 1942.
4.2 The company is the exclusive owner and the registered proprietor of the Trademark BOMBAY DYEING in India under the provisions of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act 1958 registration No. 332842 as of January 28, 1977, in respect of textile piecegoods including bed sheets, bed spreads and pillow cases in international class 24.
4.3 The said registration is renewed from time to time, is valid, subsisting and in force until January 28, 2006.
4.4 The Complainant has established very significant goodwill in the mark through extensive business activities in India and internationally.
4.5 The domain name "B" was registered by the Respondent from July 3, 1998, to July 3, 2000, and renewed until July 6, 2001.
5. The parties contentions
5.1 The Complainant asserts:
The Respondent has sought to register and hold a domain name identical and confusingly similar to the Complainant�s trademark and service mark BOMBAY DYEING.
The Complainant asserts in the Amended Complaint that the Respondent provides web hosting and other like services on the net.
The Complainant further asserts that he has received a letter offering to sell the disputed Domain name and that he has reason to believe the letter emanated from the Respondent.
In view of the above the Complainant submits that the Respondent should be considered as having no rights or legitimate interest in the domain name and that the registration and use is in bad faith.
5.2 The Respondent asserts:
In the Response of October 19, 2000, the Respondent made a general statement of good faith. However no response has been received to the Amended Complaint following the Preliminary Finding and Order.
6. Findings
6.1 The Complainant has adduced evidence in support of the three heads required by the Policy.
6.2 The Respondent has failed to comply with the Preliminary Finding and Order.
6.3 The Complainant has satisfied the Panelist that on balance the three grounds set out in Rule 3(b)(ix) are satisfied.
7. Decision
The Panel grants the remedy sought by the Complainant and requests and requires that the domain name "" be transferred to the Complainant.
Gary Biesty
Panelist
March 13, 2001
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy