About Intellectual Property IP Training IP Outreach IP for… IP and... IP in... Patent & Technology Information Trademark Information Industrial Design Information Geographical Indication Information Plant Variety Information (UPOV) IP Laws, Treaties & Judgements IP Resources IP Reports Patent Protection Trademark Protection Industrial Design Protection Geographical Indication Protection Plant Variety Protection (UPOV) IP Dispute Resolution IP Office Business Solutions Paying for IP Services Negotiation & Decision-Making Development Cooperation Innovation Support Public-Private Partnerships The Organization Working with WIPO Accountability Patents Trademarks Industrial Designs Geographical Indications Copyright Trade Secrets WIPO Academy Workshops & Seminars World IP Day WIPO Magazine Raising Awareness Case Studies & Success Stories IP News WIPO Awards Business Universities Indigenous Peoples Judiciaries Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Traditional Cultural Expressions Economics Gender Equality Global Health Climate Change Competition Policy Sustainable Development Goals Enforcement Frontier Technologies Mobile Applications Sports Tourism PATENTSCOPE Patent Analytics International Patent Classification ARDI – Research for Innovation ASPI – Specialized Patent Information Global Brand Database Madrid Monitor Article 6ter Express Database Nice Classification Vienna Classification Global Design Database International Designs Bulletin Hague Express Database Locarno Classification Lisbon Express Database Global Brand Database for GIs PLUTO Plant Variety Database GENIE Database WIPO-Administered Treaties WIPO Lex - IP Laws, Treaties & Judgments WIPO Standards IP Statistics WIPO Pearl (Terminology) WIPO Publications Country IP Profiles WIPO Knowledge Center WIPO Technology Trends Global Innovation Index World Intellectual Property Report PCT – The International Patent System ePCT Budapest – The International Microorganism Deposit System Madrid – The International Trademark System eMadrid Article 6ter (armorial bearings, flags, state emblems) Hague – The International Design System eHague Lisbon – The International System of Appellations of Origin and Geographical Indications eLisbon UPOV PRISMA Mediation Arbitration Expert Determination Domain Name Disputes Centralized Access to Search and Examination (CASE) Digital Access Service (DAS) WIPO Pay Current Account at WIPO WIPO Assemblies Standing Committees Calendar of Meetings WIPO Official Documents Development Agenda Technical Assistance IP Training Institutions COVID-19 Support National IP Strategies Policy & Legislative Advice Cooperation Hub Technology and Innovation Support Centers (TISC) Technology Transfer Inventor Assistance Program WIPO GREEN WIPO's Pat-INFORMED Accessible Books Consortium WIPO for Creators WIPO ALERT Member States Observers Director General Activities by Unit External Offices Job Vacancies Procurement Results & Budget Financial Reporting Oversight

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Indian Oil Corporation Limited v. RareNames, WebReg

Case No. D2010-2002

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Indian Oil Corporation Limited of New Delhi, India, represented by Scriboard Advocates & Legal Consultants, India.

The Respondent is RareNames, WebReg of Waltham, Massachusettes, United States of America, represented by NameMedia, Inc., United States of America.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <indianoil.net> is registered with TierraNet d/b/a DomainDiscover.

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on November 22, 2010. On November 22, 2010, the Center transmitted by email to TierraNet d/b/a DomainDiscover a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On November 23, 2010, TierraNet d/b/a DomainDiscover transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. The Center verified that 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(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on November 26, 2010. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was December 16, 2010. The Response was filed with the Center on December 16, 2010.

The Center appointed Christopher J. Pibus as the sole panelist in this matter on December 23, 2010. 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.

On December 20, 2010, the Complainant submitted an unsolicited supplemental filing, reiterating many points of its Complaint.

4. Factual Background

The Complainant is the owner inter alia, of the following trademark:

INDIAN OIL – Indian Trademark Registration No. 454371 in Class 4.

The Respondent registered the disputed domain name on August 21, 2002. In its Response, the Respondent has expressly consented to the transfer of the domain name in question.

5. Discussion and Findings

In line with previous decisions, e.g., Williams-Sonoma, Inc. v. EZ-Port, WIPO Case No. D2000-0207, Amgen Inc. v. Texas International Property Associates, WIPO Case No. D2007-0155, Valero Energy Corporation, Valero Refining and Marketing Company v. RareNames, WebReg, WIPO Case No. D2006-1336, Levantur, S.A. v. Rarenames, WebReg, WIPO Case No. D2007-0857, Instituto del Fondo Nacional de la Vivienda para los Trabajadores v. Whois Privacy Protection Service Inc., Demand Domains, Inc. WIPO Case No. D2007-0917, since the Respondent has consented to the transfer of the disputed domain name to the Complainant, the Panel finds that in this case there is no need to assess the facts supporting the claim.

Paragraph 10(a) of the Rules allows the Panel to use discretion in conducting the proceeding in such manner as it deems appropriate under the Policy and the Rules. Paragraph 10(c) of the Rules requires the Panel to “ensure that the proceeding takes place with due expedition”.

The Respondent in this proceeding, who is represented by Counsel, has expressly agreed in the Response to transfer – without admitting to the elements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy – the disputed domain name to the Complainant upon order of the Panel. Therefore, as held in Amgen Inc. v. Texas International Property Associates, supra, “given Respondent’s consent to transfer, this Panel deems it appropriate to grant the request to transfer under Rule 10. No further consideration or discussion of the elements of Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is deemed necessary”.

6. Decision

For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with Paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the domain name, <indianoil.net> be transferred to the Complainant.

Christopher J. Pibus
Sole Panelist
Dated: January 10, 2011

https://www3.wipo.int/contact/en/area.jsp?area=arbitration https://www.wipo.int/pressroom/en/ https://www.wipo.int/tools/en/disclaim.html https://www.wipo.int/en/web/privacy-policy/ https://www.wipo.int/en/web/accessibility/ https://www.wipo.int/tools/en/sitemap.html https://www3.wipo.int/newsletters/en/ https://www.wipo.int/podcasts/en/ https://www.wipo.int/news/en/