Nallis.com domain name dispute re-ruled, Indian complainant lost, WIPO maintains domain name ownership

Recently, the Arbitration and Mediation Center of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) ruled on the second Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) case filed by Nalli's Silks Sari Centre in India against the domain name Nallis.com, dismissing the complainant's request to transfer the domain name. This case has attracted industry attention due to the complexity of family trademark disputes, domain name investment and UDRP procedures.

Historical disputes and domain name transfers

The complainant Nalli's Silks Sari Centre has been operating a silk sari business in India since 1981 and owns the "NALLI'S" trademark registered in 1993. The domain name Nallis.com was registered by the complainant in 1999, but was ruled to be transferred to another Indian family business, Chetty Group, in the first UDRP in 2009. After that, the complainant failed to renew the domain name, causing it to expire in 2019, and it was eventually purchased by Mira Holdings, a US domain name investor, through a Snapnames auction for US$1,174.

Focus of dispute: bad faith registration and legitimate rights and interests

The complainant claimed that the defendant maliciously registered the domain name with the intention of reselling it at a high price. The reasons include: the domain name is highly similar to the complainant's trademark, the defendant has been found malicious in other UDRP cases, and the complainant has been using the "NALLI" trademark for a long time. However, the defendant argued that "Nalli" is a common surname (used by more than 900 people worldwide), and its acquisition of the domain name was based on investment value and was not targeted at the complainant. The defendant further pointed out that the complainant did not participate in the auction and did not provide evidence of actual use of the trademark.

The WIPO panel determined that although the complainant holds a trademark, it has not proved its international reputation, and the trademark registration category is relatively narrow (only textiles). In addition, the domain name transaction records provided by the defendant show that similar surname domain names are often sold at high prices. Therefore, the panel believes that the defendant's behavior is in line with reasonable investment logic and does not constitute bad faith.

Ruling results and procedural details

The panel finally ruled that the complainant failed to meet the "bad faith registration and use" requirement of the three elements of the UDRP, and rejected the defendant's allegations of reverse domain name hijacking. During the case process, the defendant's reply was overdue due to email delays, but the panel still accepted his statement based on the complexity of the case.