Cybersquatting: Okay to use MNC’s name if no India ops

“Blocking of trademark and blocking of trade name is not looked upon kindly by the Courts. It has become a practice to block important domain names,important trade names so that others cannot use it despite the fact that the person himself may own it just to sell it in future,” said Justice Dhingra while dismissing a plea by a US-based firm.

The petition was filed by Century 21 Real Estate LLC,having its registered office at New Jersey. The company was engaged in real estate sales and was further involved in real estate brokerage service since 1971 using “Century 21” as its brand/ logo.

As per the petition,the company had obtained registration of its trademark “Century 21” in various countries all over the world and had also got “Century 21” mark registered in India in March,1989.

However,another company,Century 21 Main Realty Pvt Ltd were also using “Century 21” as an integral part of their corporate name and was using it as the logo,thereby violating its intellectual property right intentionally and malafidely with the intention to pass off business as that of the foreign company.

Countering the charges,the defendant company contended that that the US firm in fact had no presence in India,for it has no office in India nor it has done any business here. Moreover,even the Website of the foreign firm did not show India as the country where its services were available and hence,there was no question of defendant taking advantage of the former’s name or reputation,it further alleged.

Adjudicating the petition,Justice Dhingra noted that it was an admitted fact that the US firm had no business or presence in India and hence its name would therefore not be known to the Indian customers,who had an intention to deal in real estate.

“Merely because a company is having presence in many countries in the business of realty does not mean that the company’s reputation has travelled to every single country on earth. Reputation and goodwill of a company are intangible assets and these intangible assets are to be shown to exist,” the court held against the foreign firm.