The judgment established the importance of protecting domain names and clarified the grounds for setting aside an arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

JUDGMENT

Neena Bansal Krishna, J. (Oral). - CM APPL. 13424/2022 (Exemption)

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. Application is disposed of.

CM APPL. 13425/2022 (Delay of 60 days in filing appeal)

1. By this application, the appellant seeks condonation of 60 days' delay in filing the appeal.

2. For the reasons stated in the application as also in view of the extension of the period of limitation granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in W.P.(C) 3/2020 in Re: Cognizance for extension of Limitation, delay of 60 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

3. Application is disposed of.

FAQ (OS) (COMM.) 66/2022

1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 37(l)(c) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and Section 13 (1A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2005 challenging the judgement dated 27.10.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in OMP (COMM) 37/2021, whereby the petitioner (appellant herein) was directed to immediately transfer the disputed domain name < www.fireball.in> to the respondent-complainant and has sought restoration of the domain Name fireball, in'.

2. Briefly stated, the claim of the respondent in arbitration was:

"The respondent-Sazerac Brands, LLC, a Company incorporated in Louisiana, United States of America (USA), having its registered office at 10101 Linn Station Road, Suite 400, Louisville, Kentucky-402 23, markets and manufactures cinnamon whisky under the name and brand of 'fireball' and associated merchandise therewith. The domain name fireballwhisky.com' is also the owner of the registered trademark fireball' with the earliest registration in India dating back to July 19, 2013 under Classes 32 and 33 as well as in more than 70 jurisdictions globally. Sazerac's predecessor was one of America's oldest family-owned and privately-held distilleries. Sazerac itself was founded in 1869 and owns many of America's most venerable distilling companies - including Buffalo Trace Distillery, A. Smith Bowman, Glenmore Distillery and 1792 Barton, et al. The trademark fireball' is well-known on account of goodwill acquired by the brand over the years and substantial marketing, including through the internet as a ready medium of exposure to consumers apropos their goods and services. Sazerac owns and operates the websites 'www.fireballwhisky.com1 and 'www.sazerac.com' and has also registered numerous domain names containing the word 'Fireball' that include, inter alia, 'Fireballmusic.co.uk', 'Fireballwhiskey.cn', 'Fireballwhiskey.co.uk', Fireballwhiskey.com','Fireballwhiskeyindia. com, 'Fireballwhisky.cn', Fireballwhiskybeer.com'.

3. The respondent filed a complaint challenging the registration of domain name by the appellants on the ground that it was registered in bad faith with an intention to disrupt the business of the respondent.

4. The appellant herein claimed that he is a resident of Ontario, Canada and holds a Bachelor degree in Engineering and Management from McMaster Faculty of Engineering, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. He asserted that since 1960, all the students and alumni of Faculty of Engineering are referred to as the FireBall Family', as the official symbol for McMaster's Faculty of Engineering is a 'fireball'. He has been part of McMaster's Fireball Family' since 1995, i.e., well before the respondent registered its Trademark in Canada, in 1997. Appellant along with a batchmate, had searched for a single-word domain name, but found that <.com> and other Country Code Top-Level Domains ('ccTLD's') such as <.net>, <.org> or even <.co>, <.ca>, etc. were not available. Thus, they had to register the impugned domain name.

5. As per paragraph 5(b) of IN Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (hereinafter referred to as 'INDRP'), the. IN Registry appointed a Sole Arbitrator, who in its award dated 23.09.2020 considered in detail the evidence and concluded that the disputed domain name was identical or confusingly similar to the Trademark of the complai