- Joined
- Jan 24, 2004
- Messages
- 1,333
- Reaction score
- 12
NEW DELHI: Cable and Wireless Guernsey Ltd has surrendered 22 internet sites to Bharti Airtel Ltd, which convinced the Channel Island Domain Name Registry (CIDNR) to rule against the domain-squatting by the UK company.
Both Cable and Wireless and Bharti had participated in the bid for providing telecom services, including mobile phone network, in Jersey and Guernsey in UK and the Indian company had won the contract in 2006.
This year, Bharti discovered that its contact with the people in the two places through web pages is getting seriously impeded as the rival company has registered as many as 22 sites containing the word âAirtel'.
It immediately moved a complaint through advocate Pratibha Singh before CIDNR saying that Bharti enjoys copyright over the name âAirtel', which was coined in 1994.
It said, ââCable and Wireless has deliberately obtained the domain name registrations with the word âAirtel' to curb Bharti's business in Channel Islands which is an act of unfair competition in trade.''
Immediately after receiving the complaint, CIDNR swung into action and sought response from Cable and Wireless, which refused to reply. Thereafter, on July 3, CIDNR appointed an expert to adjudicate on the dispute.
A day after the expert's appointment, Cable and Wireless sent a communication asking CIDNR to transfer the domain names to Bharti, which claimed to have 28 million customers in India.
While continuing with the adjudication process, the expert found that Bharti Airtel Ltd and Bharti Global Ltd ââhold legitimate rights in these trademarks''.
The expert was satisfied that the effect of Cable and Wireless registering the domain names was to deprive the complainant companies, as legitimate holders of brand and trade mark interests, of rights to the names in question.
CIDNR in its final order said: ââThe expert considers registration of the names after the failure of Cable and Wireless to win the rights to licences subsequently awarded to Bharti, could potentially be construed as an abusive (or blocking) registration.â Source
___
Peace,
Dan
Both Cable and Wireless and Bharti had participated in the bid for providing telecom services, including mobile phone network, in Jersey and Guernsey in UK and the Indian company had won the contract in 2006.
This year, Bharti discovered that its contact with the people in the two places through web pages is getting seriously impeded as the rival company has registered as many as 22 sites containing the word âAirtel'.
It immediately moved a complaint through advocate Pratibha Singh before CIDNR saying that Bharti enjoys copyright over the name âAirtel', which was coined in 1994.
It said, ââCable and Wireless has deliberately obtained the domain name registrations with the word âAirtel' to curb Bharti's business in Channel Islands which is an act of unfair competition in trade.''
Immediately after receiving the complaint, CIDNR swung into action and sought response from Cable and Wireless, which refused to reply. Thereafter, on July 3, CIDNR appointed an expert to adjudicate on the dispute.
A day after the expert's appointment, Cable and Wireless sent a communication asking CIDNR to transfer the domain names to Bharti, which claimed to have 28 million customers in India.
While continuing with the adjudication process, the expert found that Bharti Airtel Ltd and Bharti Global Ltd ââhold legitimate rights in these trademarks''.
The expert was satisfied that the effect of Cable and Wireless registering the domain names was to deprive the complainant companies, as legitimate holders of brand and trade mark interests, of rights to the names in question.
CIDNR in its final order said: ââThe expert considers registration of the names after the failure of Cable and Wireless to win the rights to licences subsequently awarded to Bharti, could potentially be construed as an abusive (or blocking) registration.â Source
___
Peace,
Dan
