This Arbitral Tribunal was constituted by nomination of undersigned as the Arbitrator in the aforesaid proceeding vide communication by NIXI and accordingly this Tribunal issued notice to the parties on 01/10/2018. This Tribunal was in receipt of an email from NIXI dated 26/09/2018 showing the dispatch of the complaint vide Overnite Express Courier. On tracking the said courier this Tribunal found that it had been delivered. Accordingly vide the aforesaid communication this Tribunal directed the Respondents to send their Statement of Defense by 10/10/2018.
This Tribunal on 03/10/2018 received an email of the Respondent that they have not received the Complaint sent by NIXI through courier hence, vide order dated 04/10/2018 this Tribunal directed the Respondents to send their complete postal address.
This Tribunal vide order dated 07/10/2018 directed the Respondent to file their SOD by 16/10/2018 as they were in receipt of the complaint on 05/10/18. This Tribunal vide the same order also directed the Complainants to comply with the orders dated 01/10/2018 & 04/10/18.
This Tribunal having received both hard and soft copy of the SOD on 14/10/18 directed both the Complainants and Respondents to file their Evidence by way of Affidavit in support of their Complaint and SOD respectively by 22/10/2018.
The Respondents vide email dated 17/10/18 requested for extension for filing their affidavit hence vide order dated 18/10/18 this Tribunal granted time till 27/10/18 to the Respondents for filing their Evidence by way of Affidavit.
01/11/2018 and the Respondents sent the soft copy on 24/10/18 and hard copy on 25/10/18. The award was reserved vide order dated 03/11/ 2018. This Arbitral Tribunal proceeds to examine the claim statement of the Complainant and the Statement of Defense of the Respondents and their Evidences including documentary evidence filed in the present proceeding.
of sporting goods under name and style of GO SPORT.
B. The Complainant while relying on Annex 2 claim that they have developed into one of the leading sporting goods stores. The Complainant in the year 2018 have purportedly announced that they would open between 20 and 40 stores in India and Sri Lanka in 2018.
C. By relying on Annex 3 it is claimed that in 2017, GO SPORT recorded a revenue of €1 billion and is growing 5% on an annual basis.
E. By relying on Annex 5 the Complainant claims to have registered numerous domain names including the distinctive wording GO SPORT®, such as the official domain name , registered since September 28th, 1997.
F. It is alleged that the disputed domain name was registered orv February 2nd, 2011 by the Respondent and as per Annex 6 the disputed domain name resolves to the parking page with pay-per-click links.
• Case No. INDRP/776, Amundi v. GaoGou, .
H. Complainant further contend that the addition of the ccTLD “.IN” is not sufficient to escape the finding that the domain is identical to its trademark and does not change the overall impression of the designation as being connected to the trademark of the Complainant.
The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name(s).
IV. By again relying on the case the Case No. INDRP/776, Amundi v. GaoGou, the Complainant submits that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the said domain name. It is emphasized that the Respondent is not known as “GO SPORT”, but as “Vinit Saxena” and such a Respondent is not commonly known by a disputed domain name.
V. It is claimed that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name and he is not related in any way with the Complainant, Nor does he carry out any activity for the complainant has no business with the Respondent.VI. It is further contended that Complainants has neither licensed nor authorized the Respondent to make any use of the trademark GO SPORT®, or apply for registration of the disputed domain name by the Complainant.
VI. The domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. It is alleged that the domain name is identical to the known trademark GO SPORT®, registered by the Complainant and given the reputation of the Complainant’s trademarks and the inclusion of the commercfal links in relation with the Complainant’s activity to the parking page where the disputed domain name resolves, the Respondent has registered the domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant’s trademarks and has registered the domain name in bad faith.
• Case No. INDRP/986, Accor v. Vyacheslav Chistovich tNDRP/851, BOEHRINGER Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG v. Elizabeth Rose, .
H. Per contra the Respondent have contested the claims by stating that as per Annexures, the Complainants have no presence in India and that Go Sport is a Town in England and also in Alabama USA hence it is a generic name.
(ii) whether the said towns relate to some business which the Complainants claim to be in.
J. The other contention of the Respondent is w.r.t. the presence of Complainants in India since 2018 and their registration of the disputed domain name in February, 2011. This contention of the Respondent stands belied by Annexure 2 which dates back to 1978 & Annexure 4B – where in International Registration of Trade Mark “GOSPORT” is dated .02/08/1998 & 06/08/1998.
In his reply he submits “So far I haven’t got the opportunity to develop a website.” This amplifies that Respondent has only parked the domain name.
This Tribunal has perused the complaint / Evidence and the documents relied upon by the complainants and the SOD/ Evidence of the Respondents . Hence, in view of the above this Tribunal holds that the respondents did not have any claim on the domain name www.gosport.in. hence this Tribunal directs the Registry to transfer the domain name www.gosport.in to the V complainants.
The Complainants too are free to approach the Registry and get the same transferred in their name.
have the complainants disclosed their revenue figures.
India (NIXI) for their record and a copy of the Award is being sent to both the parties for their records.