RPG Life Sciences Ltd. of Mumbai, India, represented by Anand & Anand, India has just been found Guilty of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (RDNH) on the domain RpgLife.com by a one member UDRP Panel.
The domain name was registered back on October 28, 2005
Despite generating some $47 Million in revenue in 2012-2013 the company tried to grab the domain name away from its owner without compensation.
Here are the relevant facts and findings by the one member panel:
The Complainant operates a pharmaceuticals and biotech business with operations in India, distributing product more than 30 countries.
The Complainant holds registrations for the trademarks RPG and RPG LIFE in India which it uses to designate pharmaceutical, veterinary and sanitary preparations for medical purposes.
The Indian registration for the mark RPG has been in effect since 1999 and the registration for RPG LIFE since October 2012, the latter claiming use from 1999. Approximate global revenue for sales of RPG brand product in 2012-13 was around USD $47 million.
The Respondent uses the Disputed Domain Name to resolve to a social media platform for players of games involving “role-playing” where participants pretend to be imaginary characters in fictional settings.
The Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in the mark RPG pursuant to Indian Trademark Registration No. 850255 from April 8, 1999, which predates registration of the Disputed Domain Name.
Even so, the propriety of a domain name registration may be questioned by comparing it to a trademark registered in any country (see Thaigem Global Marketing Limited v. Sanchai Aree, WIPO Case No. D2002-0358). The Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in the mark RPG.
The Complainant has submitted no cogent evidence concerning the recognition of the word “RPG” as a trademark.
It has provided a number of copies of annual reports that do provide some evidence of the extent of advertising and sales and awards given to demonstrate recognition as a good employer but this Panel finds that there is no persuasive indicia of secondary meaning in the brand that might have occurred nor any evidence that it has been known in the trade or publicly as the source of any specific goods or services. Bald assertions are no substitute for evidence. UDRP panels have said on many occasions that allegations made in these proceedings must be supported by evidence and, indeed, the Policy makes it plain enough itself in paragraph 4(a) that “[…] the complainant must prove that each of these three elements are present.” This Panel finds the Complainant has not, for the purposes of the Policy, carried its burden of proving that it enjoys common law rights in “RPG” nor “RPG LIFE”.…
