Bar&Bench News Network
Khaitan & Co Partner Nikhilesh Panchal has led auto giant Mahindra & Mahindra to victory in a 'cybersquatting' dispute. Mahindra had filed a complaint against Zach Segal, a resident of Naples, Florida for registering the domain name, "mahindraforum.com".
Mahindra filed a complaint at the WIPO disputing ownership of the domain name and contended that the name was confusingly similar to the name of the auto giant, and that the individual had no rights or legitimate interests in registering said domain.
On July 6, 2009, Zach Segal indicated that he was willing to relinquish control of the domain name in favour of Mahindra. He stated that he did not wish to contest the Complaint and requested that there be no final decision. However, notwithstanding Segal's willingness to transfer the domain name, Mahindra decided to await the decision of the administrative proceeding.
The Arbitration and Mediation Centre at WIPO found that the domain name had been chosen and employed only for its potential commercial value. Cybersquatting is the activity of purchasing and registering a domain that is the name of an existing entity or a well-known person with an intention to mislead internet users, and of selling it to the rightful owner for wrongful monetary gain. The Centre found Segal guilty of cybersquatting and ordered him to transfer the domain name to Mahindra.
Mr. Panchal informed Bar & Bench, "This is not the first such order to be passed by the WIPO, or relating to an Indian entity. It is just that publicising such orders instills confidence in the public. Also given that the fee charged by the WIPO is nominal, enforcing one's rights is not an expensive affair."
Khaitan & Co. had also previously advised Mahindra in a complaint filed against Portfolio Brains LLC., Los Angeles, this April. WIPO concluded that Portfolio Brains was squatting on the domain name "mahindralogistics.com" and ordered a transfer of the domain in favour of Mahindra.
|
Be the first to post a comment 
Related Stories
- Does Sandero sound like Santro? Anand & Anand represent Hyundai against Mahindra-Renault in Delhi HC
- Khaitan, Trilegal drive Mahindra-Reva deal
- Sohrabuddin Sheikh fake encounter case: Ram Jethmalani to represent the former Home Minister Amit Shah
- Towering Presence: Khaitan, White & Case and Hogan Lovells in KEC’s acquisition of SAE Towers
- Airlines Cartel Case: Amarchand, Luthra and Pasrich represent foreign airlines and Indus law represents TAAI before CCI
- Mahindra Ugine sells 49% steel biz to Sanyo and Mitsui; AZB, JSA, Khaitan, Clifford and Herbert advise
- Khaitan & Co advise Cox & Kings in 450-crore IPO
Other News
- Re-Upped Round up May 21
- Clasis Law moves to a larger office space in Delhi
- Re-Upped Round up May 18
- SC to hear petition challenging appointment of sitting AP High Court judge; Petition alleges deliberate concealment of pending criminal investigation at the time of enrollment
- Linklaters Managing Associate Pranav Sharma to rejoin Amarchand Mangaldas as Partner
- Re-Upped Round up May 17
- Recruitment Tracker: Luthra top recruiter followed by Amarchand and AZB for NALSAR Class of 2012
The Viewpoint: Indemnification Provisions - Is the fight on the indemnity clause worth the effort?
May 17, 2012 | Bar & Bench brings to you the twentieth article on 'The Viewpoint' series with its Knowledge Partner AZB & Partners. AZB Senior Associate Nandish Vyas and Associate Pranati Ishwar in this article seek to examine the context in which indemnification rights are relevant for acquisition transactions, and also seek to explore if there are areas where they are potentially not worth the comments (4)










