Khadi & Village Industries Commission v Sahil Ansari, Maple enterprises

WIPO Case No. D2024-4912

ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Khadi & Village Industries Commission v. Sahil Ansari, Maple enterprises

Case No. D2024-4912

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Khadi & Village Industries Commission, India, represented by Fidus Law Chambers,

India.

The Respondent is Sahil Ansari, Maple enterprises, India.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <khadisuits.com> is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on November 27, 2024. On the same day, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On November 27, 2024, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent (Unknown) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on November 28, 2024, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amendment to the Complaint on December 3, 2024.

The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to the Complaint satisfied the formal
requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for
Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for
Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).

In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on December 6, 2024. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was December 26, 2024. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on December 30, 2024.

page 2

The Center appointed Harini Narayanswamy as the sole panelist in this matter on January 9, 2025. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the

Rules, paragraph 7.

4. Factual Background

The Complainant is a statutory body created by the government of India under the Khadi and Village
Commission Act of 1956 which runs various programs to provide employment in rural areas. Among the
various products the Complainant encourages in developing rural industry is the iconic fabric called “khadi”.
The Complainant along with its authorized retailers promotes and sells products under the KHADI trademark.

The Complainant owns several registered trademarks for the KHADI mark in India and other jurisdictions. The Complainant’s Indian trademark registrations include KHADI word mark under class 24, with registration number 2851542 and registration date November 27, 2014 (date of first use September 25, 1956). KHADI word mark is also registered with the same registration date under other classes such as KHADI word mark under class 25 with registration number 2851543, KHADI word mark with registration number 2851544 under class 26.

The Respondent, Sahil Ansari of Maple enterprises India, registered the disputed domain name on July 1,
2024. Evidence from the Internet Archive shows that the disputed domain name was being used by the
Respondent as an ecommerce store which primarily offered women’s clothing.

At the time of filing the present Complaint, the disputed domain name was not being used by the Respondent and it resolves to a parked page. A message displayed on the landing page states “Sorry, this store is currently unavailable”. Other content displayed on the page include “Open a new Shopify store”, “Check out Shopify Editions”, “Explore latest Editions” and at the top of the page “Create an Ecommerce Website and Sell Online! Ecommerce Software by Shopify” and at the bottom of the page “powered by Shopify” is displayed.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the disputed domain name.

The Complainant asserts that the KHADI trademark has acquired significant goodwill due to extensive
promotion at exhibitions and trade-fairs in collaboration with many leading brands. For instance, the
collections of four designer labels were displayed during the Lakme Fashion Week 14th edition on August
23, 2018, under the KHADI mark. The Complainant has filed evidence of extensive promotions of the KHADI
mark through print and electronic media and evidence of several exhibition and promotional events.

The Complainant contends that it is engaged in the development of village industries in India with a focus on rural weaker sections and rural women. The Complainant asserts that its programs generate large scale employment in about 248,000 villages in India.

The Complainant states that its programs for the development of khadi and village industries in rural areas are in coordination with other agencies and further states that it also implements the “Prime Minister’s Employment Generation Programs”. The said initiative is for upliftment of artisans, weavers, small-scale village industries and rural industries.

page 3

The Complainant states that it authorizes retail sellers, organizations, societies and institutions to market products under the KHADI trademark. Notably, the Complainant states that an application needs to be submitted to Khadi Institutions Registration & Certification Sewa (KIRCS) by entities seeking to be authorized users of the KHADI mark. The Complainant adds that the Respondent is not a registered user of the KHADI mark.

The Complainant asserts that it has used the mark since 1956 and “Khadi” is part of its trade name and its
corporate name for over sixty years. The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is confusingly
similar to its mark, and the use of the KHADI mark by an unauthorized party is likely to mislead its
consumers and the public. The Complainant submits that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interest

in the disputed domain name, and that the disputed domain name is registered and used in bad faith.

B. Respondent

The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

The Policy under paragraph 4 (a) requires the complainant to establish three elements to obtain the remedy of transfer of the disputed domain name under the Policy, these are:

(i) The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; and

(ii)       The respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and

(iii)      The disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith by the respondent.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The first element requires the Complainant to demonstrate that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights.

It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. The standing (or threshold) test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition, (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.7.

The Complainant has provided evidence of its registered trademarks for the KHADI mark. Based on the evidence on record, the Complainant has established its rights in respect of the KHADI trademark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1.

The disputed domain name contains the KHADI mark in its entirety along with the word “suits” and the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com”. The Panel finds the addition of the term “suits” does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the mark for the purposes of the Policy. Where the trademark is recognizable in the disputed domain name, it does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the mark. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8.

The Top-Level Domain (“TLD”) is a technical requirement for the domain name. The TLD suffix can be disregarded under the first element of the confusing similarity test, unless the suffix itself is part of the trademark. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.11.1.

The Panel accordingly finds that the first element of the Policy has been established, that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights.

page 4

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances in which the Respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name.

Although the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, panels have recognized that proving a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the difficult task of “proving a negative”, requiring information that is often primarily within the knowledge or control of the respondent. As such, where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name (although the burden of proof always remains on the complainant). If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.1.

Having reviewed the available record, the Panel notes that there is no evidence on record of an authorization having been obtained by the Respondent from the Complainant to use the KHADI mark. The Panel finds the Respondent is not known by the disputed domain name.

The material on record shows the Respondent has used the disputed domain name in connection with an ecommerce site offering apparel for women. Currently the disputed domain name resolves to a parked page that features sponsored content pertaining to a third-party website. Under the circumstances, the Respondent’s unauthorized use of the Complainant’s mark is not indicative of the Respondent rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent has not responded or refuted the Complainant’s contentions nor submitted any evidence that demonstrates rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

For the reasons discussed, the Panel finds the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent has not rebutted the Complainant’s prima facie showing or made any submissions demonstrating rights or legitimate

interests in the disputed domain name such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise.

The Panel finds the second element of the Policy has been established by the Complainant.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The third element under paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy requires the Complainant to establish the disputed domain name has been registered and used in bad faith by the Respondent. The Panel notes that, for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, paragraph 4(b) of the Policy specifies circumstances, in

particular, but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and

use of a domain name in bad faith.

Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out a list of non-exhaustive circumstances that may indicate that a domain
name was registered and is being used in bad faith, but other circumstances may also be relevant in
assessing whether a respondent’s registration and use of a domain name is in bad faith.
WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.2.1.

(i) Circumstances indicate that the respondent has registered or acquired the domain name primarily for purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of respondent’s documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or

(ii) The respondent has registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or

service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that the respondent has
engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or

page 5

(iii)      The respondent has registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business

of a competitor; or

(iv)      By using the disputed domain name, the respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for

commercial gain, Internet users to the respondent’s website or other online location, by creating a likelihood
of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the

respondent’s website or location or of a product or service on the respondent’s website or location.

The Complainant has submitted evidence to support its contentions that the KHADI trademark is widely
known and was registered and used much prior to the registration of the disputed domain name. The
Complainant has argued that the registration and use of the disputed domain name indicates the
Respondent’s intent to benefit from the reputation associated with its mark.

The material on record shows that the disputed domain name resolves to a landing page that lacks active content but was previously being used by the Respondent to promote and sell garments. It has been consistently found by UDRP panels that the registration of a confusingly similar domain name to a widely known trademark by someone who is not affiliated with the owner of the trademark and has not shown good reason for registration of the disputed domain name or its legitimate use, can by itself create a presumption of bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.1.4. The Respondent, as mentioned earlier, has not participated in these proceedings or shown any undisputable reasons for registration of the disputed domain name.

Notably, panels have found that a disputed domain name which is likely to capitalize on the goodwill or reputation related to a complainant’s mark with an intention to mislead Internet users, constitutes bad faith under the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.1.4.

Having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds that the Complainant’s mark is reputed and distinctive, and the Respondent has not provided any reasons for the registration of the disputed domain name or any potential good faith use for it. The entire set of circumstances described here indicates that the disputed domain name has been registered and used to intentionally mislead Internet users by creating a false association as to the source, endorsement or affiliation of the mark, which constitutes bad faith registration and use as envisaged under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. The current passive holding of the disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith under the totality of the circumstances present here. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.3.

The Panel finds for the reasons discussed, that the Complainant has established the third element of the

Policy that the disputed domain name has been registered in bad faith and is being used in bad faith.

7. Decision

For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain name <khadisuits.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

/Harini Narayanswamy/
Harini Narayanswamy
Sole Panelist
Date: January 23, 2025