Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.61 seconds)
Documents citing Stephen Koenig vs Arbitrator, National Internet ... on 14 December, 2011

Joseph Taheny vs Tektronix Inc & Anr. on 12 December, 2023

67. As regards the contention that the disputed domain name "tek.in" was registered by the petitioner many years prior to the date of registration of the trademark TEK in favour of the respondent no.1, it has been held in Stephen Koenig vs. Arbitrator, National Internet Exchange of India (NIXI)(supra) Signature Not Verified O.M.P. (COMM) 4/2022 Page 24 of 25 Digitally Signed By:RADHA BISHT Signing Date:14.12.2023 11:30:27 that for the purpose of clause 4(a) of the relevant INDRP, it was more than sufficient for the complainant to be a registered proprietor of the trademark in question, in order to show that the complainant has a right in the mark and that a mark cannot be held to be generic if the same is registered.
Delhi High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - S Datta - Full Document

Thoughtworks Inc vs Super Software Pvt Ltd. & Anr on 12 January, 2017

10. More importantly, the learned Arbitrator appears to have come to an erroneous conclusion that the trademark „ThoughtWorks‟ did not belong to the Petitioner. Again, no opportunity was afforded to the Petitioner. The impugned domain name contains only the Petitioner‟s trademark and yet no finding was returned on whether there was any similarity. The decision in Stephen Koenig v. Arbitrator, National Internet Exchange of India (supra) which was subsequently upheld by the Division Bench of this Court by its decision dated 2nd November, 2015 because of the fact that a mere delay in lodging the complaint would not disentitle the aggrieved party from proceeding against the 'squatter'.
Delhi High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - S Muralidhar - Full Document

Lens. Com, Inc. vs Ju J Friend International on 24 January, 2018

7. I have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner. A Single Judge of this Court in Stephen Koenig vs. National Internet Exchange of India (NIXI) 2011 SCC Online Del 5384 after examining the INDRP has held that in terms of para 10 of the INDRP, if the complainant succeeds then, it should result in the cancellation of the domain name registration in favour of the registered owner or in the transfer of the domain name to the complainant, however, further order of the arbitrator directing OMP (Comm.) 223/2016 Page 3 of 8 confiscation and retention of the domain name is without any legal basis as there is no such provision in para 10 of the INDRP.
Delhi High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - N Chawla - Full Document
1