Reliance Retail Limited v Pankaj Kumar

WIPO Case No. D2024-4878

ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Reliance Retail Limited v. Pankaj Kumar

Case No. D2024-4878

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Reliance Retail Limited, India, represented by Arjun T. Bhagat & Co., India.

The Respondent is Pankaj Kumar, India.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <campacoladealer.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 26,

2024. On November 26, 2024, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on November 28, 2024, and a further amended Complaint on December 3, 2024.

verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On November 26, 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 (DomainsByProxy.com, C/o. GoDaddy.com LLC)
and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on

The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended Complaints 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 paragraph 5, the due date for Response was December 25, 2024. The Respondent did not submit any

response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on December 26, 2024.

page 2

The Center appointed Shwetasree Majumder as the sole panelist in this matter on January 3, 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 an Indian company incorporated in the year 1999. The Complainant holds several registrations are as below:

- Indian Registration No. 413916 for, registered on December 2, 1983;

- Indian Registration No. 5715401 for, registered on December 8, 2022.

The disputed domain name <campacoladealer.com> was registered on April 23, 2024. At the time of filing

the Complaint, the Respondent’s website was offering dealerships, distributorship, and franchises for the

Complainant’s products under its marks CAMPA and CAMPA COLA. The Respondent’s website also uses

the mark of the Complainant reproduced below:

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

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

1970 to 1980 before it was sidetracked by the entry of international soft drink brands namely Pepsi and

The Complainant states that the brand CAMPA, was a popular Indian soft drink brand between the years an aim to re-launch the iconic Indian brand with 50 years of legacy, the Complainant states that it acquired the brands CAMPA and CAMPA COLA in the year 2022. The brand CAMPA was official relaunched in

March 2023. The Complainant has submitted an order dated July 6, 2023 of the Hon’ble Bombay High

Court, where its rights in the marks CAMPA and CAMPA COLA were upheld against a third party which was infringing its marks and committing fraud by offering fake franchises for CAMPA COLA beverages.

The Complainant contends that that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its CAMPA COLA mark. The Complainant argues that the Respondent has designed its website to defraud innocent individuals into believing that this is the website to obtain dealership or distribution or distributorship or franchise of CAMPA and CAMPA COLA products. On its website, the Respondent is seen to be inviting applications from the public for dealership, distributorship, franchise opportunities. The Complainant points

out that the Respondent’s website is using the Complainant’s stylized design mark CAMPA to give an

authentic feel to its website and dupe innocent visitors.

page 3

The Complainant asserts that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed that the Respondent is or has been known by the name CAMPA or CAMPA COLA and there are no legitimate websites associated with the disputed domain name that provide any information about the Respondent.

domain name, since it has never licensed or authorized the Respondent to use its marks or to offer
dealership, distributorship, franchise in respect of its products. The Complainant has also alleged that the
Respondent has not used the disputed domain name prior to adoption and use of their CAMPA and CAMPA
COLA marks by its predecessors in title. The earliest use of the CAMPA and CAMPA COLA marks of the

The Complainant asserts that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name in bad faith and

alleged several reasons, including that the Respondent knew about the Complainant’s rights in its CAMPA

and CAMPA COLA marks; that the Respondent used the disputed domain name to impersonate the Complainant intentionally to attract commercial gains and carry out fraudulent and phishing activities.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

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 shown rights in respect of a trademark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy.
WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1.

The Panel finds the Complainant has established unregistered trademark or service mark rights for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.3.

The Panel finds the Complainant’s marks CAMPA and CAMPA COLA are recognizable within the disputed

domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the marks for the purposes

of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7.

Although the addition of the term “dealer” may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the

Panel finds the addition of such term does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8.

The Panel finds the first element of the Policy has been established.

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

page 4

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 finds the Complainant has established that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent has not rebutted the

Complainant’s prima facie showing and has not come forward with any relevant evidence demonstrating

rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name such as those enumerated in the Policy or

otherwise.

The Respondent has designed the website under the disputed domain name to defraud innocent individuals
into believing that this is the site to obtain dealership or distribution or distributorship or franchise of the

CAMPA or CAMPA COLA beverages. These activities of the Respondent clearly indicate that the said

Respondent was very much aware of the Complainant, its reputation and its business. The Respondent’s

activities are aimed at practicing deception and fraud upon Internet users who would be confused upon
seeing the website under the disputed domain name and are likely to access the same under the belief that
the same is the website of the Complainant or is associated with or is sponsored by the Complainant and to

lure the unwary people into believing that they can obtain dealership or distribution or distributorship or

franchise. The addition of the term “dealer” in the disputed domain name can only aggravate the confusion

of Internet users, who will think that the Respondent is an official dealer of CAMPA and CAMPA COLA
beverages.

Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity of phishing, impersonation/passing off, or other types of fraud can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.13.1.

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

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Panel notes that, for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, paragraph 4(b) of the Policy establishes circumstances, in particular, but without limitation, that, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith.

The Panel notes that the Respondent by registering and using the disputed domain name, is seeking to lure

Internet users into believing that they are accessing the Complainant’s website where they can obtain

dealership, distribution, distributorship, or franchise the CAMPA/CAMPA COLA products. The Respondent

is likely to collect moneys from Internet users by practicing deception, under the guise of providing dealership

of the Complainant’s CAMPA and CAMPA COLA products, leading to fraud. The Respondent’s use of the

Complainant’s stylized design mark CAMPA on its website is clearly to give the website an authentic

“look and feel” to defraud Internet users. The Panel finds that such conduct is probative of the Respondent’s

bad faith in registering and using the disputed domain name.

Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out a list of non-exhaustive circumstances that may indicate that a domain name was registered and used in bad faith, but other circumstances may 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.

Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity of phishing, impersonation/passing off, or other types of fraud constitutes bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.4. Having reviewed the record, the

Panel finds the Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name constitutes bad faith under

the Policy.

The Panel finds that the Complainant has established the third element of the Policy.

page 5

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 <campacoladealer.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

/Shwetasree Majumder/

Shwetasree Majumder

Sole Panelist
Date: January 20, 2025