The main legal point established in the judgment is that the arbitral proceedings must comply with the principles of natural justice and the fundamental policy of Indian law, providing each party with a full opportunity to present its case.

VIBHU BAKHRU, J.

1. The petitioner, a company organized under the laws of the Isle of Man, has filed the present petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereafter “the Act”) impugning the arbitral award dated 21.08.2017 (hereafter “the impugned award”) delivered by the Arbitral Tribunal constituted under the .IN Dispute Resolution Policy and Rules of Procedure framed thereunder.

2. By the impugned order, the Arbitral Tribunal has rejected the petitioner’s complaint in regard to the registration of the domain name www.starpoker.in (hereafter “the disputed domain name”) which is registered in the name of respondent no.1.

3. The claim filed by the petitioner was not controverted by respondent no.1 and remained uncontested. However, the Arbitral Tribunal considered the claim and found that the disputed domain name did not offend any of the three conditions as set out in paragraph 4 of the .IN Dispute Resolution Policy (INDRP). The Arbitral Tribunal, accordingly, rendered the impugned award rejecting the petitioner’s claim.

4. The principal ground urged on behalf of the petitioner to assail the impugned award is that the Arbitral Tribunal has founded the arbitral award on the research and material found on its own – and not the evidence and material placed by the parties – therefore, the petitioner had no opportunity to contest or controvert the same.

5. Briefly stated, the relevant facts necessary to address the controversy are as under:-

6. The petitioner claims to be a part of the Group of companies of the Stars Group Inc. The said group is engaged in the business of offering online service, such as poker rooms and platforms for the hosting of skill-based card game of poker. It is also stated that the group owns the trademark “PokerStars” (hereafter “PokerStars Mark”).

7. Respondent no.1 is an individual and a resident of Kolkata. He is the registered owner of the disputed domain name. Respondent no.2 (National Internet Exchange of India – hereafter “Nixi”) is a “not for profit” company of the Government of India. It is stated that Nixi is a designated and appointed body, which is responsible for the purposes of .IN country code, top level domain name. The .IN Registry also functions under the control of Nixi.

8. IN Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (INDRP) and the Rules framed thereunder (INDRP Rules of Procedure) have been framed for resolution of domain name disputes. INDRP Rules of Procedure provides for a dispute resolution mechanism in regard to disputed domain names.

9. The petitioner filed a complaint, which was registered as INDRP Case No. 901 with Nixi disputing the rights of respondent no.1 in respect of the disputed domain name. In terms of the INDRP Rules of Procedure, the said dispute was referred to the Arbitral Tribunal constituted by the Sole Arbitrator appointed by Nixi.

10. In its complaint, the petitioner alleged that its trademark, PokerStars mark, was a well-known trademark and was recognized world over. The petitioner claimed that the said mark was first used in the year 2001, when a website with the address www.pokerstars.com was launched. It is stated that the first major online poker tournament was launched by the petitioner’s group in 2002. Subsequently, the petitioner’s group also launched several websites including www.pokerstars.net, which provide a platform for the live game of Poker. It is claimed that the petitioner’s group has held several poker events such as “POKERSTARS CHAMPIONSHIP”, “POKERSTARS FESTIVAL” and “POKERSTARS MEGATACK” in various countries across the globe.

11. The petitioner claimed that the petitioner’s group of companies had spent substantial time, efforts and resources in developing the trademark and the brand name “PokerStars” alongwith other variants. It is further claimed that the petitioner (and its group) had applied for and had obt