New Delhi, August 2026: Anand and Anand successfully represented 9562532 Canada Inc. in proceedings under the .IN Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (INDRP), securing an award directing the transfer of the disputed domain name www.runwaycatalog.in.
The Arbitrator held that the disputed domain name was identical to the Complainant's RUNWAY CATALOG trademark, that the Respondent had no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name, and that it had been registered and used in bad faith. The Award further reaffirmed that a country code Top-Level Domain (ccTLD), such as ".in", is merely a technical requirement of registration and is ordinarily disregarded while assessing confusing similarity. The Arbitrator also recognised the Complainant's longstanding trademark rights and continuous commercial use dating back to 2014.
The Award is significant for its detailed application of the three cumulative requirements under Paragraph 4(a) of the INDRP—namely, (i) identity or confusing similarity, (ii) absence of rights or legitimate interests, and (iii) registration or use in bad faith. In assessing these requirements, the Arbitrator reaffirmed that once a complainant establishes a prima facie case, the evidentiary burden shifts to the respondent to demonstrate legitimate rights or interests in the disputed domain name.
The Award also addresses important procedural issues under the INDRP. Rejecting the Respondent's preliminary objection on limitation, the Arbitrator held that continued registration and use of an infringing domain name constitutes a continuing wrong, giving rise to a fresh cause of action. The Award further clarifies that electronic evidence in arbitral proceedings cannot be discarded solely for want of a certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. Relying on settled legal principles, the Arbitrator observed that arbitral tribunals are not bound by the strict provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure or the Indian Evidence Act, and that the evidentiary value of electronic material must instead be assessed on the facts of each case.
While allegations relating to manipulation of website content and screenshots could not be conclusively determined in the absence of forensic examination, the Arbitrator relied on the documentary record and surrounding circumstances to conclude that the Respondent's conduct amounted to opportunistic bad faith, ultimately directing transfer of the disputed domain name to the Complainant.
Commenting on the matter, Safir Anand said:
" The Award is a significant reaffirmation that trademark protection must extend to the digital environment in which brands operate and compete today. It is particularly important in recognising that the continued registration and use of an infringing domain name can constitute a continuing wrong. The decision demonstrates that opportunistic conduct in the digital space will not be permitted to challenge established trademark rights. "
The matter was handled by Safir Anand, Senior Partner, along with Omesh Puri, Partner, and Rashi Chandhoke, Senior Associate, from Anand and Anand.
About Anand and Anand
Anand and Anand is one of India’s leading intellectual property law firms with offices in Delhi NCR, Mumbai, Chennai, Kolkata and Bengaluru. The firm advises and represents clients across patents, trademarks, copyrights, designs, litigation, enforcement and allied areas of intellectual property law as also corporate and commercial laws. For over a century, Anand and Anand has been at the forefront of protecting innovation, brands and creative assets for domestic and international clients.
