ccTLDs.com » Country Code Specific Forums » .in Forum

[Ace]

Truly this is a very unfair decision.

Whats needs to be noted is that based on trademark application, this name was registered before the trademark was applied for.

Weird very weird.

[zapdaddy]

Yet another terrible INDRP decision. The more I hear the more I like every other cctld better...

[jberryhill]

It's been repeatedly suggested in this thread that it is important to develop .in domains.

One thing that most people don't realize is that when an INDRP dispute is filed, the registry turns the domain name OFF.

This process is a joke from beginning to end.

First, take a side-by-side look at the UDRP Rules and the INDRP Rules.

Here's the UDRP Rules:

ICANN | Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy

And the INDRP

INDRP Rules of Procedure

And here's a side-by-side listing of the headings:

1. Definitions 1. Definitions

2. Communications 2. Communications

3. The Complaint 3. The Complaint

4. Notification of Complaint 4. Notification of Complaint

5. The Response 5. Appointment of the Panel and Timing of the Decision

6. Appointment of the Panel and Timing of Decision

Wooops... notice something missing?

[jberryhill]

Accidentally hit "post"....

Yes, that's right. There are NO rules about Responses in the INDRP.

Try this one... In the UDRP, you have 20 days to respond. What is the response period in the INDRP?

That's right. There isn't one.

You aren't expected to respond.

Now, take a look at what's going on.

Notice the complainant in rig.in.

Notice the complainant in honey.in.

They are rolling these thing up.

The .in ccTLD is a worthless racket.

[theoretical]

I have enormous respect for you John, and I am certainly frustrated by decisions like the one in Honey.in, but over 90% of the disputes in the .in registry are for obvious trademark violations and squatting. The remaining 10% of cases are troubling in their lack of concern over domainer's rights to the names, but they are the vast minority of disputes. To claim the entire registry is a racket is libelous in regards to NIXI and harmful to investors and developers of .in domain names, especially considering your status in the domain community.

I also disagree with the claim that you, as a respondent, aren't expected to respond, but it simply is at the arbitrator's choosing as to the timeframe and conditions of the communication from the respondent as evidenced by essentially every single dispute finding I've read.

There were a number of disputes submitted by one company which should have addressed their concerns during the sunrise period but is now making a number of claims. They are not the first and they are likely not the only company that will do so. It is certainly troubling but it is not the end of the world as we know it, either. I think members of the domain community like you should bring these issues to light but in a positive way and also bring them directly to NIXI so that they have an opportunity to address these concerns.

But honestly, there have been just as many horrible decisions in UDRP disputes in recent history as there have been INDRP cases. We don't say .com is worthless because the UDRP process doesn't seem consider the rights of domain holders and names are being ripped from .com domain owners in frightening numbers.

I appreciate your input into this discussion but I reject your claim that the whole .in extension is worthless.

[jberryhill]

To claim the entire registry is a racket is libelous in regards to NIXI and harmful to investors and developers of .in domain names, especially considering your status in the domain community.

Then by all means bring a tape recorder to the session in Amsterdam, because I will make that point very clear, and support it with further information.

.in is a worthless racket, and players like Directi have made it so.

You tell me what a great site www.hotels.in is.

[jberryhill]

But honestly, there have been just as many horrible decisions in UDRP disputes in recent history as there have been INDRP cases. We don't say .com is worthless because the UDRP process doesn't seem consider the rights of domain holders and names are being ripped from .com domain owners in frightening numbers.

Tell me again - what is the response period under the INDRP?

Go read it. When you have a factual basis for a statement, feel free to post it here.

In the rig.in dispute, several days after the complainant filed the complaint, the arbitrator set the response period to seven days from the time it was filed. In other words, the response period was expired by the time the respondent knew what the response period was.

Protecting their marks? Really? The complainant in rig.in has rig.co.in. What do they use it for? It is a parking page. Their mark, by the way is not "RIG".

Please, I'm willing to bet you have no practical experience with the UDRP, so unless you want to demonstrate otherwise, don't lecture me about it. I have direct experience with both systems, and the INDRP is a sham, and the .in ccTLD is worthless.

[jberryhill]

And, to be clearer, I am specifically one of the people mentioned by Rick in the OP.

[theoretical]

I'm not why you are directing so much anger towards me. I'll gladly admit that I've not been through either UDRP or INDRP processes. That doesn't mean I don't have a vested interest or spent time researching previous cases. I respect your opinion, and I think I made it clear that I wanted you to speak out on the problems you see with the process, but not in the destructive way like you seem intent on doing here. I wanted to bring to your attention that there are people outside of Directi, NIXI and a couple of other companies that are or have in the past abused the INDRP process that are affected by your statements.

I'm not going to get into a legal argument with you because you'll win. Hands down. But to clarify my statement about responses, there are clearly rules about "Default" (determined by the arbitrator) and how to establish notification time frames so as to form a basis for responses (presumably from both parties) and that the decision is based on the documentation provided to the Arbitrator... not just what was provided in the initial complaint. The issues you mention should certainly be addressed by NIXI. If there is a specific concern with the Rig.in with the way it was handled (from what you've said it sounds like they didn't follow their own rules), I can't speak to it as the only information I have is what is in the dispute decision. I've read all or nearly all of the decisions, and there are numerous discussions of how it's incumbent on the respondent to prove their case... how else would they do that without having an opportunity to respond? Not that I'm happy that the respondent has to prove their case, but that's another matter. Even the rig.in case includes information that was provided by the respondent.

Looking at the rig.in case, I'm not sure where the arbitrator came to the conclusion of a legitimate claim. In some ways it seems as though they are trying to provide protection to domain owners (the owner of rig.co.in against someone registering a confusingly similar rig.in name), but it certainly seems like a very large leap of logic considering the circumstances.

Again, I want to hear what you have to say and I hope that you are providing your concerns directly or indirectly to NIXI. But for everyone sake, please don't damn the whole of the .IN domain community to what essentially boils down to about a dozen bad decisions in the last 4 years and really 2 or 3 "bad apple" companies. Point fingers where it's due, but don't flush the whole thing down the drain.

If someone does tape record your panel in Amsterdam I'll be all ears.

[jberryhill]

I'm not why you are directing so much anger towards me.

I'm not at all angry. You had suggested I was engaging in some sort of defamation by observing the process is a joke.

Yes, in the one or two days in which a respondent has an opportunity to say something, they will certainly try to throw something together in a hurry. The point remains that the INDRP has no rules - no provisions at all - which provide a respondent a meaningful opportunity to respond.

This is a deliberate feature of the INDRP. As I noted above, the structure of the INDRP rules was taken from the UDRP rules. The subject matter and many of the substantive provisions follow the same order, and the section headers are identical - with one glaring deliberate omission - i.e. any rules relating to a response.

Looking at the rig.in case, I'm not sure where the arbitrator came to the conclusion of a legitimate claim. In some ways it seems as though they are trying to provide protection to domain owners (the owner of rig.co.in against someone registering a confusingly similar rig.in name), but it certainly seems like a very large leap of logic considering the circumstances.

Yes, and it would have been nice to actually see the decision. Neither NIXI nor the panelist actually sent a copy to the respondent until a month after the decision was made. The idea that someone would actually respond, and continue to be a participant in the proceeding, is apparently something of a novelty to them.

it seems as though they are trying to provide protection to domain owners (the owner of rig.co.in against someone registering a confusingly similar rig.in name

Yes... quite some valuable site there at rig.co.in - a parking page showing results primarily relating to drilling. What a surprise that the respondent in rig.in is a geographer who provides software to petroleum geologists among other things. Yeah, I can see the clothing trademark infringement written all over that.

[theoretical]

"Please don't lecture me" certainly seemed like you were angry with me for something that I had said. I wouldn't presume to lecture you on the law or the dispute process... but I'm looking out for my own interests when you claim "the whole .in cctld is a worthless racket" so I apologize if I came off sounding upset myself. Saying the dispute process is a joke however is more accurate and not something I would have even bothered to respond to. We can agree on that point.

I'm not sure, but from what you have stated, it would seem like the respondent in the rig.in case has a legal case against the registry regarding the handling of the dispute as it appears they have not complied with their own rules. It's one thing to not have clear rules, but it's entirely another to not abide by their clearly stated rules.

I'm curious, what recourse do you see that the respondent has? Thanks!

[jberryhill]

I'm curious, what recourse do you see that the respondent has? Thanks!

Another key difference between the UDRP and the INDRP is that the answer to your question is essentially "none".

You'll notice that while the UDRP makes express provision for an independent determination by a court, the INDRP states that the proceeding is conducted in accordance with the Arbitration Act.

If the Indian Arbitration Act is like most countries, then unless you catch the arbitrator on camera taking wads of 1000 rupee notes from one of the parties, then forget it.

We are talking about a legal system in which its okay for an American company to kill and blind thousands of people in a single incident and not be held accountable for two decades.

[theoretical]

It would seem a case could be made based on at least two of the provisions listed here:

The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

But as we've established, IANAL

[jberryhill]

Thank you for providing a link to the act in question.

As expected, yes, that is pretty standard fare for national arbitration laws, and none of the grounds for setting it aside relate to whether the reasoning of the decision was substantively flawed.

The UDRP is not an arbitration, btw. That's a commonly raised, and shot down, issue in post-UDRP litigation.

The point of arbitration laws, when you are dealing with an actual arbitration, which the INDRP expressly states to be, is to provide a high bar against undoing them. The point of arbitration is to avoid court proceedings, and if courts regularly got into the nuts and bolts of arbitration decisions, then the purpose is defeated. Accordingly, a lot of countries have adopted specific statutes, just like this one, which provide only very narrow recourse against one.

[jagusa]

If I were writing a comic farce about the pantaloons.in INDRP complaint, I could do no better than the decision posted today by the Indian registry.

http://registry.in/policies/dispute_...ntaloonsin.pdf

I am so happy this INDRP jewel fortuitously arrived before the cctld conference next week.

[sam]

This tribunal further directs the Complainant to deposit a token sum of
Rs.25,000 INR in the registry of NIXI as penalty for being an accomplice in
an act of illegality so as to act as a deterrent for all others to being an
accomplice/ a party to Criminal offence of offering money to a Cyber Squatter
for buying a Domain name. This tribunal also directs the Respondent to pay
an amount of 1000 Us Dollars to NIXI as punishment and penalty for
resorting to illegal means/ cyber squatting and as cost of this proceedings for
burdening the administration to fulfill his dirty ulterior motives.Wow

[snicksnack]

I don't think they will ever see the $1000

[jmcc]

Originally Posted by jagusa

If I were writing a comic farce about the pantaloons.in INDRP complaint, I could do no better than the decision posted today by the Indian registry.

http://registry.in/policies/dispute_...ntaloonsin.pdf

I am so happy this INDRP jewel fortuitously arrived before the cctld conference next week.

The logic is quite disturbed. The complainant is successful but gets financially penalised for trying to negotiate a recovery of the domain. The respondent gets hit with a financial penalty for his "dirty ulterior motives". Sheer lunacy.

Regards...jmcc

[ebiz4india]

Hello All.

Its very hard to believe what is being talked about on this particular thread. I know Bhavin T. (Founder & Chairman) of Directi.

I know means, I just saw his interviews on multiple business channels. And am an frequent visitor to his blog (Bhavin’s Blog).


He is such a young & nice person to watch out for and he does have business ethics to follow and his company is worth more than $400+ Million. Hence his company (Directi) does not required to do some kind of cheap activity like Domain Hijacking and all. But all of us can use the freedom of our speech anywhere (including on this forum). It cost nothing, isn't.

Few people talk about like (you can do anything if you have money). its wrong, totally in-correct & its a Myth.

Visit India, from Airport go to the nearest police station and try to lodge an complaint of baggage lost and check how tough questions those policemen ask you and then only the proceeding starts.

There are rules and regulations set by .IN registry, no body can snatch your .IN domain unless its violate their company/registered trademark.

CHECK YOURSELF:-
Dispute Resolution Process

.IN Domain Registration Policies:-
Policies


Just do some Google and the fact will popup in front of you!




Regards

[jagusa]

Rig.in, awarded and transferred to Pantaloon Retail Limited in an INDRP, is now parked. Their .co.in version of the name (rig.co.in) is also parked. Classy.

[zapdaddy]

Originally Posted by jagusa

Rig.in, awarded and transferred to Pantaloon Retail Limited in an INDRP, is now parked. Their .co.in version of the name (rig.co.in) is also parked. Classy.

I would hope that a site would pop up there really soon. If not, thats just terrible

[chandan]

Originally Posted by zapdaddy

I would hope that a site would pop up there really soon. If not, thats just terrible

co.in is from landrush and parked so i guess you hoping too much

[dnaffiliates]

Indian registry frowns on reselling. If they suspect names are being resold, then they will take the name back. Not a good idea to have them on a site.

[zapdaddy]

Originally Posted by dnaffiliates

Indian registry frowns on reselling. If they suspect names are being resold, then they will take the name back. Not a good idea to have them on a site.

What kind of site are you referring to?