The Complainant is Indusind Bank Limited, India, represented by SNG & Partners, India.
The Respondent is Manish Bhalla, India. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 6, 2020. On July 6, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On July 7, 2020, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. On July 13, 2020, the Complainant requested for the suspension of the proceeding. On July 13, 2020, the Center sent the Notification of Suspension (before commencement) to the Parties, allowing the Parties to explore settlement options. On August 8, 2020, the Complainant requested for an extension of the suspension period, and the proceeding was further suspended until September 11, 2020, pursuant to the Notification of Extension to Suspension dated August 10, 2020. On September 7, 2020, the Complainant requested for the reinstitution of the proceeding, and the proceeding was reinstituted on September 7, 2020. The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”). In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on September 7, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was September 27, 2020. No formal Response was filed with the Center. On September 28, 2020, the Center informed the Parties that it would proceed to appoint the Panel. The Center appointed Harini Narayanswamy as the sole panelist in this matter on October 14, 2020. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7. 4. Factual Background The Complainant is an Indian scheduled commercial bank that is registered with the Reserve Bank of India under the Banking Regulation Act, 1949. The Complainant owns registered trademarks for the mark INDUSIND BANK under class 36. The details of the Complainant’s registered trademarks are: (i) Indian Trademark No. 2560043 dated July 5, 2013, for device mark INDUSIND BANK under class 36 and (ii) Indian Trademark No. 2560044 dated July 5, 2013 for device mark INDUSIND BANK under class 36. The Complainant operates its website from the domain name The Respondent, Manish Bhalla registered the disputed domain name The Complainant states it was incorporated on January 31, 1994 and is listed on the National Stock Exchange of India and the Mumbai Stock Exchange. Its global depository receipts, the Complainant states, are listed on the Luxembourg Stock Exchange. The Complainant has representative offices in London, Dubai and Abu Dhabi and states that its client base is about 25.37 million as of March 31, 2020. The Complainant states that it has gained the reputation of a reliable and dependable bank over twenty-six years of its operations as it runs a fair and transparent organization. The Complainant states its registered office is located in the city of Pune and it has 1911 branches, or banking outlets, 30,674 employees and 2760 ATM machines spread across 751 locations in India and has pioneered initiatives that have redefined banking in India. Among the services offered by the Complainant are: credit cards, debit cards, charge cards, store value prepaid cards, smart cards, store value electronic purse services, providing electronic funds and currency transfer services, cash disbursement services, transaction authorization and settlement services debit and credit services by means of radio frequency identification devices (transportation), travel insurance services and cheque verification. The Complainant states it is the sole and exclusive owner of the registered trademark INDUSIND BANK and has advertised and promoted the said mark widely through newspapers, digital and electronic media. The Complainant asserts that the mark is associated with its banking business in India and globally and the Respondent’s use of the mark in the disputed domain name is likely to be detrimental to its reputation and its business. The Complainant adds that the disputed domain name is likely to confuse online consumers, clients, government and regulators and the Respondent’s sole intention is to profit unjustly from such registration. The Complainant requests for the transfer of the disputed domain name on the grounds that: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusing similar to the trademark in which the Complainant has rights; (ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and (iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith by the Respondent. B. Respondent The Respondent did not file a response or take part in these proceedings. The Respondent has been notified of these proceedings and has been served copies of the Complaint and related documents by email and courier respectively on September 7 and 10, 2020. 6. Discussion and Findings The registration agreement for the disputed domain name is between the ICANN-accredited Registrar GoDaddy and the Respondent. Under paragraph 6 of the said agreement, the Respondent has agreed to be bound by the Dispute Resolution Policy, which is the UDRP. The Policy is incorporated and made part of the Agreement. The Policy under paragraph 4(a) requires the Complainant to establish three elements to obtain the remedy of transfer of the disputed domain name, these are: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and (ii) the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and (iii) the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith by the Respondent. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The first element requires the Complainant to establish the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or a service mark in which it has rights. The Complainant has provided evidence of its registered trademarks. These are trademark No. 2560043 dated July 5, 2013, for device mark INDUSIND BANK under class 36 and trademark No. 2560044 dated July 5, 2013 for device mark INDUSIND BANK under class 36. Evidence of registered trademark rights prima facie satisfies the threshold requirement of having trademark rights for purposes of the Policy. When a trademark contains design elements, a UDRP panel’s assessment of identical or confusing similarity involves comparing the domain name with the textual components of the relevant mark. See section 1.10 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition(“WIPO Overview 3.0”). Comparing the textual components of the mark with the disputed domain name, it is evident that the disputed domain name contains the INDUSIND BANK mark with the additional letter “s”. Inclusion of the letter “s” with the mark, as correctly argued by the Complainant, does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity with the INDUSIND BANK mark. The Panel finds the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark INDUSIND BANK. The first requirement under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy has therefore been fulfilled by the Complainant. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Under the second element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the accepted guideline is that the Complainant needs to make only a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Complainant has argued that the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. The Complainant has further submitted that the Respondent does not have any legal entity or business known by the disputed domain name nor does the Respondent use disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. The Complainant has also asserted that the Respondent has not been authorized or licensed to use its mark for the registration of the disputed domain name but has registered the disputed domain name to misappropriate the reputation associated with its mark. The Panel finds from the material on record that the Complainant has proven that it has well-established rights in the INDUSIND BANK mark in connection with its banking business. In India banking business is highly regulated by the Reserve Bank of India. The Respondent is an individual who has not taken part in these proceedings or provided any reasons for use of the Complainant’s mark in the disputed domain name. In the absence of any credible reason for registration of the disputed domain name bearing a reputed mark of a widely known bank in India, and the fact that the disputed domain name is parked and resolves to a page with links such as: “Career Jobs, Jobs Recruitment, Career Jobs, Jobs Nearby, Cash Loans, Money Transfer”, the balance of probabilities suggests that the use of the Complainant’s mark in the disputed domain name is not likely to be for any conceivable legitimate purposes. The reasonable inference under the circumstances discussed, is that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name to derive mileage from the Complainant’s trademarks, which does not support a finding of the Respondent’s rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Further, the use of the disputed domain name to host links does not represent a bona fide offering, The Panel finds the Complainant has made a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The second requirement under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, has been fulfilled by the Complainant. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The third element requires the Complainant to establish the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith by the Respondent. The Complainant has established in these proceedings that it has adopted and used the INDUSIND BANK mark for a number of years prior to the registration of the domain name and that it has well-established rights in the mark. It is unlikely that the Respondent, who is an individual located in India was unaware of the Complainant’s rights in the mark at the time of registration of the disputed domain name in April 2020. Under paragraph 8 of the Domain Name Agreement, the Respondent has signed and accepted the following terms in the Agreement: “You represent and warrant to the best of your knowledge that, neither the registration of the domain nor the manner it is directly or indirectly used, infringes the legal rights of any third party.” Given the facts and circumstances, the only plausible reason for the Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name appears to be for purposes of taking advantage of the reputation associated with the INDUSIND BANK mark. The registration of the disputed domain name is accordingly found to be in bad faith. The disputed domain name is not being used by the Respondent. Passive holding or non-use of the disputed domain name supports a finding of bad faith, under the Policy when: (i) the Complainant has demonstrated that its trademark is distinctive; (ii) the Respondent has failed to provide any explanation for actual or contemplated good faith use; and (iii) any future contemplated use of the disputed domain name by the Respondent which contains the trademark is likely to mislead the public as to its origin, source or affiliation. Refer to section 3.3 of WIPO Overview 3.0. Given the reputation and prominence of the Complainant’s mark, the registration and the use of the disputed domain name therefore comes under the scope of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy, which is to attract Internet users to the Respondent’s online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement which is recognized as bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name under the Policy. The Panel accordingly finds that the Complainant has fulfilled the third element under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. 7. Decision For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain name Harini Narayanswamy
Sole Panelist
Date: October 25, 2020
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy