An Indian company known as Nalli lost a decision under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) for <nali.life>, and the case holds a basic but important lesson that I often tell my clients: Filing a complaint under the UDRP is not a simple task of filling in the blanks.
I discuss this WIPO case in a video on the GigaLaw YouTube channel.
As the UDRP decision shows, when a trademark owner doesn’t take the time to provide appropriate factual and legal arguments, a panelist is likely to deny a request to order the transfer of a disputed domain name. Plus, in this case, the panelist even scolded the trademark owner for its failures.
Nalli, according to the decision, was founded in 1928 and uses the domain name <nalli.com> in connection with its website that sells a wide variety of pure silks and sarees in various fabrics and styles and different price points. The registrant of the disputed domain name, <nali.life> (which contains a single letter “L”) sold skin care products.
Nalli argued that the respondent’s domain name and website were bound to induce the public into believing that it had a connection with Nalli, which is not the case; that there could be no plausible explanation for the registration of the disputed domain name, other than to misappropriate the reputation of the NALLI trademark; and that the Respondent should have known of the NALLI trademark.
But the panel disagreed, writing in part:
Even if the Respondent knew or should have known of the NALLI trademark, the Complainant has not offered any evidence that the Respondent proceeded with the registration of the disputed domain name for a bad faith purpose, rather than for the purpose of registering a domain name that corresponds to the name of what appears to be the Respondent’s skin care product….
It is generally not acceptable to file boilerplate complaints only containing conclusory arguments… That is particularly so when the arguments made are not relevant to the facts. The Complainant’s Complaint here verges on spurious.
In my video, I quote other language from the UDRP decision as well and discuss other important aspects of this case.
Interestingly, Nalli has filed and won previous UDRP cases. But as this decision shows, past performance is no guarantee of future success. Every UDRP complaint is judged on its own merits, and the failure to cite appropriate evidence – something I always expend considerable time and effort to do on behalf of my clients – is never something that should be taken for granted.
