Based on a quick search, here’s what I discovered.

Analysis of WIPO Domain Name Dispute Case D2021-0360: A Study in Reverse Domain Name Hijacking

In the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) case number D2021-0360, the dispute revolved around the domain name “shaktiman.com”. The complainant in this case was Tirth Agro Technology Private Limited, while the respondent was Anuj Bhargava, Anroh Global Services Pvt. Ltd. The decision, rendered on March 24, 2021, was notable for its detailed examination of the principles of domain name disputes and its ultimate finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (RDNH).

Background of the Dispute

The complainant, Tirth Agro Technology Private Limited, based its claim on several trademark registrations for the mark “SHAKTIMAN” across various classes, dating back to 1999 in some cases, and even earlier in others. Notably, the complainant also held trademark registrations for the SHAKTIMAN mark in the United States, Israel, and the European Union. Despite these registrations, the disputed domain name “shaktiman.com” was registered on January 13, 2000, and was not being used for an active website at the time of the dispute.

The complainant argued that it had used the SHAKTIMAN mark since 1961 and that the mark had acquired a significant reputation and goodwill. They contended that the domain name was identical or confusingly similar to their trademark, that the respondent had no legitimate interest in the domain name, and that it was registered and being used in bad faith.

Respondent’s Defense

The respondent, Anuj Bhargava of Anroh Global Services Pvt. Ltd., countered by asserting their prior adoption and ownership of the disputed domain name. They claimed that the domain name was registered for Ruchi Infotech Limited, involved in software development services, well before the complainant registered their own domain name “shaktimanagro.com” in 2005.

A significant point of contention was the timeline of the complainant’s trademark usage. The respondent highlighted inconsistencies in the complainant’s claims about the usage of the SHAKTIMAN mark, pointing out that the complainant was incorporated only in July 2000, which contradicted their claim of using the mark since 1961 or 1999.

WIPO Panel’s Findings

The WIPO panel, led by Harini Narayanswamy, analyzed the case based on three key elements: whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the complainant has rights, whether the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and whether the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

The panel found that the complainant did have rights in the trademark and that the disputed domain name was identical to the trademark. However, the panel did not find it necessary to assess whether the respondent had a legitimate interest in the domain name, given their findings on the third element concerning bad faith.

For the bad faith element, the panel observed that the complainant failed to provide evidence that its mark was widely known at the time of the domain name’s registration. The documentation provided showed the use of the trademark only after the registration of the domain name, leaving a significant gap in proving use prior to the year 2000. The panel also noted that “Shaktiman” is a generic term in Hindi, further complicating the complainant’s case.

Conclusion and Implications

The panel concluded that the disputed domain name was not registered with the intention to exploit the complainant’s mark. Given the absence of evidence showing that the complainant’s mark was widely known or targeted at the time of the domain name’s registration, the complaint was denied. Furthermore, the panel declared this case as an instance of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking, indicating that the complainant attempted to unjustly seize a legitimately registered domain name.

This case underscores the complexity of domain name disputes and the importance of substantiating claims with appropriate evidence, especially in the context of trademarks and their recognition at the time of a domain name’s registration.

Analysis of WIPO Domain Name Dispute Case D2021-0360: A Study in Reverse Domain Name Hijacking In the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) case number D2021-0360, the dispute revolved around the domain name “shaktiman.com”. The complainant in this case was Tirth Agro Technology Private Limited, while the respondent was Anuj Bhargava, Anroh Global Services Pvt. Ltd.…