Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4. PW-1 has further deposed that M/s. Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd. is the promoter company of M/s. Times Internet Ltd., the plaintiff, entered the field of e-commerce about a decade back. He has further deposed that the e-commerce field was entered into by M/s. Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd. under the Trade Name/Logo of "Indiatimes" and for this purpose the said company created a portal named "indiatimes.com". PW-1 has also deposed that it developed an internet site "http.www.indiatimes.com" and through this site, the said company started offering to the public a large variety of goods and services and internet shopping, online games, internet options, shopping and gifts including inter-alia sale of fresh flowers, numerous gift items, e-cards etc. It is next deposed that the Trademark and Logo "Indiatimes" was coined by M/s. Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd. as the said company is the owner of numerous publications such as the Times of India, The Economic Times, Navbharat Times, Delhi Times, Bombay Times etc. popularly known as the Times Group publications, and its name is associated with the said Trademark/Logo. He has also deposed that M/s. Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd., therefore, became the legal and beneficial owner throughout the world of all copyrights, intellectual property rights, design rights and trademarks in the said mark and logo "Indiatimes". Internet printout of Domain name registration through „Whois Lookup‟ showing „indiatimes.com‟ creation date as 22.11.1999 has been exhibited as Exhibit PW 1/2.

17.PW-1 has also deposed that the defendant no.1 has not responded to the legal notice and the result is that the defendant no.1 has not made any change in the name of his website/domain name, which is the essential address/internet identification. It is further deposed that the Defendant no.1 is merely using the domain name registration of "indiatimes.com" in order to trade in it and encash the same, which is obviously mala fide and it is obvious that defendant no.1 merely want to earn huge money/goodwill by using the domain name of the plaintiff, which in blatant violation of the plaintiff‟s rights. It is next deposed that the defendants are fraudulent, dishonest, malafide and unlawful and are squatting upon the trade name of the plaintiff in bad faith and the Defendant no.1 has no right or locus standi, either to get registration under the domain name "http:/www.myindiatimes.com" which is identical with and deceptively similar to that of the plaintiff‟s domain name, or any other domain name which consists of the plaintiff‟s mark or copyright name. It is also deposed that in fact, Defendant no.1 does not have any right or locus to use the mark "indiatimes" as part of their name in relation to any domain name, products, goods or services whatsoever. It is also deposed that the registration of the impugned domain name by defendant no.1 is only with a view to hoard/traffic/cyber squat in the internet which is completely unlawful and is clearly a "bad Faith" registration as defined in the „Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy‟ framed and adopted by the ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers).