National Arbitration Forum




Real Global Broadcasting Pvt.Ltd. v. c/o pushkar patil

Claim Number: FA0908001280663



Complainant is Real Global Broadcasting Pvt.Ltd. (“Complainant”), represented by Emily S. Mechem, of Arent Fox LLP, Washington, D.C., USA.  Respondent is c/o pushkar patil (“Respondent”), India.



The domain name at issue are <>, registered with Quantumpages Technologies Pvt. Ltd. d/b/a Ownregistr.



The undersigned certifies that he or she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his or her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.


R. Glen Ayers, Jr. served as Panelist.



Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on August 21, 2009; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on August 21, 2009.


On August 22, 2009, Quantumpages Technologies Pvt. Ltd. d/b/a Ownregistr confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <> domain name is registered with Quantumpages Technologies Pvt. Ltd. d/b/a Ownregistr and that the Respondent is the current registrant of the name.  Quantumpages Technologies Pvt. Ltd. d/b/a Ownregistr has verified that Respondent is bound by the Quantumpages Technologies Pvt. Ltd. d/b/a Ownregistr registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain-name disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).


On August 24, 2009, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline of September 14, 2009 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, was transmitted to Respondent via e-mail, post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts, and to by e-mail.


A Response was received by e-mail on August 25, 2009, but because no hard copy was received before the Response deadline, the Response was determined to be deficient because it was not timely, and therefore not in compliance with ICANN Rule 5.  However, the Panel has considered the Response. 


On September 22, 2009, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed R. Glen Ayers, Jr. as Panelist.



Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.



A. Complainant

Complainant contends that Respondent has improperly registered the domain name the <>.  Complainant alleges that it is preparing to broadcast a reality television series called “SARKAAR KI DUNIYA”.  This is a “reality television series” about 18 Indians who meet on a remote island and are tasked to transform the island while living under the scrutiny of an autocratic ruler.  The series allegedly debuted March 2, 2009.  Based upon aggressive marketing and ownership of the television series, a trademark application has been applied for.  The application date was March 3, 2009.  On March 2, 2009, Complainant registered the domain name. 


Complainant asserts a common law right in the mark the name SARKAAR KI DUNIYA.  Complainant has established a prima facia case sufficient to establish common law rights.  Complainant has also established a prima facia case showing that the domain name is confusingly similar or identical to its common law mark. 


Complainant goes on to establish a prima facia case that Respondent has no legitimate interest in the domain name.  Respondent is not currently licensed to use the name. 


Complainant also asserts a registration and use of the domain name in bad faith.  On a point by point basis, it has set forth facts establishing a prima facia case of bad faith.  Complainant notes that it had begun to advertise the reality television series before the registration of the mark and asserts evidence to support use of the domain name in bad faith to devert Internet users to Respondent’s website. 


B. Respondent

Respondent forwarded various emails to the parties and to the Forum.  While not proper responses pursuant to the ICANN rules and procedures, the Panel has determined to accept those various emails as responses.  In one email, Respondent has stated that “I have already replied to you that I am not interested in this domain, I was ready n [sic] and still ready to transfer the domain name since your first email. . . .” 


Because Respondent has consented to the transfer of the <> domain name, the Panel has determined to forego the traditional UDRP analysis and order immediate transfer of the domain name.  See Boehringer Ingelheim Int’l GmbH v. Modern Ltd. – Cayman Web Dev., FA 133625 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 9, 2003) (transferring the domain name registration where the respondent stipulated to the transfer); see also Malev Hungarian Airlines, Ltd. v. Vertical Axis Inc., FA 212653 (Nat Arb. Forum Jan. 13, 2004) (“In this case, the parties have both asked for the domain name to be transferred to the Complainant. . . .  Since the requests of the parties are identical, the Panel has no scope to do anything other than recognize the common request, and it has no mandate to make findings of fact or compliance (or not) with the Policy.”); see also Disney Enters, Inc. v. Morales, [A475191 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 24, 2005) ([U]nder such circumstance, where Respondent has agreed to comply with Complainant’s request, the Panel felt it expedient and judicial to forego the traditional UDRP analysis and order transfer of the domain names.”).    


This particular case illustrates the wisdom of the Boehringer Ingelheim and other cases.  The Respondent has consented to the transfer.  The Complainant has clearly established a prima facia case which has not been rebutted.  A formal opinion would merely reflect the unrebutted allegations made by the Complainant and could lead to no other result. 



Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”) instructs this Panel to “decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable.”


Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that the Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred:


(1)   the domain name registered by the Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;

(2)   the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and

(3)   the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.



Respondent having consented to the transfer of the disputed domain name, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.


Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.




R. Glen Ayers, Jr., Panelist

Dated:   October 3, 2009



Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page