QUANTUM UNIVERSITY vs INTERNATIONAL QUANTUM UNIVERSITY FOR INTEGRATIVE MEDICINE INC
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ O.M.P. (COMM) 260/2021
QUANTUM UNIVERSITY ….. Petitioner
Through: Mr. Jayant Mehta, Sr. Advocate
with Mr. Samaksh Goyal, Advs.
versus
INTERNATIONAL QUANTUM UNIVERSITY FOR INTEGRATIVE MEDICINE INC ….. Respondent
Through: Mr. Sudhir K. Makkar. Sr. Adv.
with Ms. Veronica Mohan, Ms. Veena Mathai and Ms. Keerti Gupta, Advs.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
J U D G M E N T (O R A L)
% 13.12.2023
1. Under challenge, in this petition preferred under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the 1996 Act), is an award dated 4 May 2021, passed by a learned Sole Arbitrator in arbitral proceedings instituted against the petitioner Quantum University, by the respondent International Quantum University for Integrative Medicine INC before the .IN Registry, under the .IN Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (INDRP).
2. The complaint instituted by the respondent sought cancellation of the domain name www.quantumuniversity.edu.in (in which quantumuniversity is known as the Secondary Level Domain or SLD and .edu.in is known as the Top Level Domain or domain extension) registered in favour of the petitioner on 4 August 2017. The respondent alleged that it was a prior registrant of the domain name www.quantumuniversity.com as well as various other domain names, all of which used the SLD quantumuniversity with various extensions, principally quantumuniversity.net, quantumuniversity.org, quantumuniversity.education and quantumuniversity.online. (They shall collectively be referred to as the quantumuniversity formative domain names). The domain name of the petitioner, which was www.quantumuniversity.edu.in, alleged the respondent, infringed the respondents quantumuniversity.com domain name, which was registered prior in point of time, owing to the common quantumuniversity SLD. Clause 10 of the INDRP, which envisages cancellation of an infringing domain name was, therefore, pressed into service by the respondent. The impugned award finds the petitioners domain name www.quantumuniversity.edu. in fact to be infringing the quantumuniversity formative domain names of the respondent, including www.quantumuniversty.com, in all of which quantumuniversity was the SLD. Inasmuch as the respondents quantumuniversity formative domain names were registered prior in point of time to the registration of the domain name www.quantumuniversity.edu.in in favour of the petitioner on 4 August 2017, the respondent was found entitled to the relief sought by it. The impugned award, therefore, concludes thus:
The Tribunal thus concludes that the domain name “www.quantumuniversity.edu.in” is identified with Complainant’s name, mark and services. Therefore, the adoption, registration and use of the disputed domain name by the respondent show bad faith and the same must be cancelled as prayed for. That is the present case squarely falls within the premises of bad faith registration and use, thus fulfilling the condition laid down in clause 4(c) of the INDRP Policy.
VII. DISPOSITIONS
The Arbitral Tribunal holds, that the Respondent’s domain name www.quantumuniversity.edu.in is identical and confusingly similar to the name, trademark and brand name “QUANTUM UNIVERSITY” owned by the Complainant. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name www.quantumuniversity.edu.in and the same has been registered in bad faith. The three elements set out in paragraph 4 of the INDRP Policy have been established by the Complainant.
Accordingly, and in terms of the INDRP Policy, the Arbitral Tribunal hereby directs that the disputed domain name www.quantumuniversity.edu.in be cancelled.
3. The petitioner, as the proprietor of the domain name www.quantumunversity.edu.in, has assailed the aforesaid award before this Court under Section 34 of the 1996 Act.
Relevant clauses of the INDRP
4. Before proceeding further, it would facilitate matters if the relevant clauses of the INDRP are reproduced:
1. Definitions
.IN Registry: Wherever used in this policy and the rules hereunder .IN Registry refers to National Internet Exchange of India (NIXI), a company registered under section 25 of the Companies Act, 1956 (now Section 8 under Companies Act 2013).
2. Purpose
This .IN Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the Policy) sets out the legal framework for resolution of dispute(s) between a domain name Registrant and the Complainant, arising out of the registration and use of an .IN or .Bharat (Available in all Indian Languages) Domain Name.
3. Registrants Representations
By applying to register a domain name, or by asking a Registrar to maintain or renew a domain name registration, the Registrant hereby represents and warrants that:
(a) the credentials furnished by the Registrant for registration of Domain Name are complete and accurate;
(b) to the knowledge of registrant, the registration of the domain name will not infringe upon or otherwise violate the rights of any third party;
(c) the Registrant is not registering the domain name for an unlawful or malafide purpose; and
(d) the Registrant will not knowingly use the domain name in violation or abuse of any applicable laws or regulations.
4. Class of Disputes
Any Person who considers that a registered domain name conflicts with his/her legitimate rights or interests may file a Complaint to the .IN Registry on the following premises:
(a) the Registrants domain name is identical and/or confusingly similar to a name, trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and
(b) the Registrant has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(c) the Registrants domain name has been registered or is being used in bad faith.
5. Dispute Resolution Process
The .IN Registry shall appoint an Arbitrator from the list of empanelled arbitrators maintained by the Registry. The List of the Arbitrators shall be published online by the .IN Registry on its website www.registry.in (https://www.registry.in/). The Arbitrator shall conduct the Arbitration Proceedings in accordance with the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 amended as per the Arbitration & Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 read with the Arbitration & Conciliation Rules as well as the INDRP Policy and Rules, as amended from time to time.
6. Registrants Rights and Legitimate Interests in the Domain Name
Any of the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Arbitrator to be proved based on its evaluation of all evidence presented, shall demonstrate the Registrants rights to or legitimate interests in the domain name for the purposes of Clause 4(b):
(a) before any notice to the Registrant of the dispute, the Registrants use of, or demonstrable preparations to use the domain name or name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services;
(b) the Registrant (as an individual, business, or other organisation) has been commonly known by the domain name, even if the Registrant has acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or
(c) the Registrant is making a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.
7. Evidence of Registration and use of Domain Name in Bad Faith
For the purposes of Clause 4(c), the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Arbitrator to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith:
(a) circumstances indicating that the Registrant has registered or acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the Complainant, who bears the name or is the owner of the trademark or service mark, or to a competitor of that Complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of the Registrants documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or
(b) the Registrant has registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the market in a corresponding domain name, provided that the Registrant has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or
(c) by using the domain name the Registrant has intentionally attempted to attract Internet users to the Registrants website or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainants name or mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the Registrants website or location or of a product or service on the Registrants website or location.
*****
10. Remedies
The remedies available to a Complainant pursuant to any proceeding before an Arbitrator shall be limited to praying for the cancellation of the Registrants domain name or the transfer of the Registrants domain name registration to the Complainant. Costs as may be deemed fit may also be awarded by the Arbitrator. However, the implementation of such award of cost will not be supervised or controlled by .IN Registry.
5. I have heard Mr. Jayant Mehta, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Sudhir K. Makkar, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent, at exhaustive length. Written submissions have also been filed.
Rival submissions
Submissions of Mr. Mehta
6. Mr. Mehta predicated his challenge to the impugned award on the following submissions:
(i) The petitioner is the prior user of the name Quantum University, having adopted the name in 2006. Quantum was coined and adopted by the Trust which controls the petitioner in October 2006. Under the said name, the petitioner was initially running the Quantum School of Technology in Roorkee. As against this, the respondent adopted the name Quantum University only on 1 September 2009. Insofar as the word/mark Quantum is concerned, therefore, the petitioner enjoys the priority of user as compared to the respondent.
(ii) On 31 December 2007, the petitioner applied to the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) for grant of permission to open a new technical institution in the year 2008-2009. Permission, as sought, was granted by the (AICTE) on 21 June 2008.
(iii) In 2016, the Uttarakhand Legislature enacted the Quantum University Act, 2016 (hereinafter the QU Act), which came into effect in April 2017. Section 4 of the QU Act established the Quantum University. Sub-sections (1) and (2) thereof read thus:
(1) Where the State Government after such inquiry is satisfied that Promoting Trust, has fulfilled the conditions, norms and requirements for establishment of QUANTUM UNIVERSITY, hence a Private University to be known as Quantum University is hereby established.
(2) The University shall be a body corporate by the name “QUANTUM UNIVERSITY” and shall have perpetual succession and a common seal and shall sue and be sued by its name.
The impugned award effectively renders the provisions of the QU Act redundant and otiose.
(iv) It is not in dispute that domain names with the extension edu.in can only be registered by educational institutions in India. As such, on 4 August 2017, the petitioners domain name www.quantumuniversity.edu.in was registered in favour of the petitioner.
(v) It was thereafter that the respondent instituted arbitral proceedings against the petitioner before the .IN Registry, which culminated in the impugned award dated 4 May 2021.
(vi) Section 221 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 (the UGC Act) specifically empowers only Universities, established or incorporated under a Central Act, a Provincial Act or a State Act, or an institution deemed to be a University under Section 3 of the UGC Act, or an institution especially empowered by an Act of Parliament, to confer or grant degrees in India. Section 2(f) defines University as a University established or incorporated by or under a Central Act, a Provincial Act or a State Act, and includes any such institution as may, in consultation with the University concerned, be recognized by the Commission in accordance with regulations made under (the UGC) Act. As such, the respondent was not empowered to confer any educational degree in India, whereas the petitioner is empowered to do so, having been conferred the requisite authority in that regard by Section 22 of the UGC Act.
(vii) Section 232 of the UGC Act specifically proscribes the use of the word University in association with the name of any institution other than a university established or incorporated by or under a Central Act, a Provincial Act or a State Act. The respondent is, therefore, not entitled to use the word University as part of its name in India.
(viii) The ironic consequence of the impugned award is, therefore, that the respondent, which has no right to use the word University as part of its name in view of the proscription contained in Section 23 of the UGC act, has injuncted the use of the domain name www.quantumuniversity.edu.in by the petitioner, who is the only entity which can call itself Quantum University in India. Such a consequence, even by itself, is sufficient to vitiate the impugned award.
(ix) The learned Sole Arbitrator could not have passed an award which effectively injuncted the petitioner from using the name Quantum University. The decision sets at naught Section 4 of the Quantum University Act and is, even for that reason, illegal and contrary to public policy.
(x) The impugned award is also contrary to the provisions of the INDRP, under which it was passed. The arbitral proceedings having been initiated and concluded under the INDRP, the provisions of the INDRP were strictly binding on the arbitrator and any decision which infracts any of the provisions of the INDRP ipso facto cannot sustain.
(xi) Mr. Mehta advances the following submissions to demonstrate how the impugned award in fact infracts the INDRP:
(a) Clause 4 of the INDRP sets out the qualifications to be possessed by a person, in order to enable him to file a complaint to the .IN Registry. The complainant has, in the first instance, to possess legitimate rights in the asserted domain name, which the respondent does not possess.
(b) The individual clauses (a), (b) and (c) are separated by the word and. This indicates that the clauses have to be read conjunctively, and not disjunctively. In other words, there must be cumulative satisfaction of all the three clauses (a) to (b) and (c) for a complaint, seeking cancellation of a domain name, to be maintainable before the .IN registry.
(c) None of the three clauses (a), (b), and (c), cumulative satisfaction of which is a pre-condition for a complaint seeking cancellation of a domain name to be maintainable before the .IN registry, is satisfied in the present instance.
(d) Apropos clause (a), it cannot be said that the domain name www.quantumuniversity.edu.in is confusingly similar to the domain name www.quantumuniversity.com or any of the other quantumuniversity formative domain names registered in the respondents favour. The respondent, admittedly, could not use the extension .edu.in as part of its domain name. There is, even for this reason, no question of any person being confused between the domain names quantumuniversity.edu.in and any other domain name of which quantumuniversity is the SLD.
(e) Apropos clause (b), Mr. Mehta submits thus:
(i) It cannot be said that the petitioner has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name quantumuniversity.edu.in. The petitioner has been granted the status of a University, and conferred with the name Quantum University by Section 4 of the QU Act. The petitioner is the only institution in India which can use the name Quantum University. It cannot, therefore, be said that the petitioner did not have any right or legitimate interests in the domain name quantumunversity.edu.in, especially as no other entity in the country or even worldwide is entitled to use this domain name.
(ii) That apart, Clause 6 of the INDRP enumerates certain circumstances which, if found to exist, would demonstrate the legitimate use of a domain name for the purposes of Clause 4(b). Inasmuch as the clause commences with the words any of the following circumstances and sub-clauses (b) and (c) are separated by or, fulfilment of any one of the three requirements envisaged in sub-clauses (a) to (c) would suffice to indicate that the use of the domain name was in exercise of the rights and legitimate interests of its owner.
(iii) The petitioner is using its domain name in accordance with each of the three sub-clauses (a), (b), and (c) of Clause 6.
(iv) Sub-clause (a) envisages use, by the registrant of the domain name in connection with bonafide offering of goods or services. Inasmuch as the petitioner was offering educational services as Quantum University, being the name assigned to it by the QU Act, it was clear that the domain name quantumuniveristy.edu.in was being used by the petitioner in connection with bonafide offering of services. Sub-clause (a) of Clause 6 of the INDRP, therefore, stands fulfilled.
(v) Sub-clause (b) is also fulfilled, as the petitioner is commonly known by the domain name quantumuniversity.edu.in.
(vi) Sub-clause (c) is also satisfied, as it cannot be said that the petitioner is using the domain name quantumuniversity.edu.in, which stands registered in its favour since 4 August 2017, with any intent to misleadingly divert consumers or tarnish the domain name of the respondent.
(vii) As the use, by the petitioner, of its domain name quantumuniversity.edu.in fulfils each of the three sub-clauses (a) to (c) of Clause 6, the petitioner clearly has rights and legitimate interests in the domain name quantumuniversity.edu.in within the meaning of Clause 4(b) of the INDRP.
(f) The respondent is also required, under Clause 4(c) of the INDRP, to demonstrate that the domain name quantumuniversity.edu.in was registered or was being used by the petitioner in bad faith. The circumstances in which registration or use of a domain name could be stated to be in bad faith stand enumerated in sub-clauses (a) to (c) of Clause 7. If, in the facts of a particular case, one or more of the sub-clauses (a) to (c) of Clause 7 is found to apply, a case of registration or use of the domain name in bad faith, within the meaning of Clause 4(c) would be made out.
(g) It was not in dispute that sub-clauses (a) and (b) of Clause 7 could not apply in the facts of the present case, as they relate to exigencies which have nothing to do with the circumstances at hand. (Mr. Makkar, too, did not seek to contend that either of clauses (a) or (b) of Clause 7 of INDRP was applicable in the present facts).
(h) Insofar as Clause 7(c) is concerned, it could not be said that the use of the domain name quantumuniversity.edu.in, which stood registered in favour of the petitioner consequent on the petitioner being designated as a University by the QU Act, results in likelihood of confusion with the respondents domain name quantumuniversity.com or any of the other quantumuniversity formative domain names of the respondent, as envisaged by Clause 7(c). This was especially so as the respondent was not entitled to use the .edu.in extension at all.
(i) As none of the sub-clauses (a) to (c) of Clause 7 was applicable, the registration and use, by the petitioner, of the domain name quantumuniversity.edu.in could not be said to be in bad faith. The pre-requisite contained in Clause 4(c) of the INDRP was also, therefore, not satisfied in the present case.
(j) Thus, the situation that obtains is that, while the complainant is required to demonstrate cumulative satisfaction of the criteria envisaged in sub-clauses (a), (b) and (c) Clause 4 of the INDRP, in order to maintain a complaint before the INDRP registry, in the present case, none of the three sub-clauses are applicable.
(xii) The learned Arbitrator has not applied himself to the aforesaid arguments of the petitioner, and has rejected most of them as being irrelevant. The consequence, as already noted earlier, is that the respondent, which is not entitled to use the mark Quantum University within India, has succeeded in divesting the petitioner, which is the only entity entitled to use the mark quantumuniversity in India, from the right to use the said mark, as part of its domain name.
(xiii) Inasmuch as the impugned award is contrary to the UGC Act, the QU Act and the INDRP, and has resulted in the afore-noted adverse consequences, the award has to be regarded as contrary to public policy and to the fundamental policy of Indian law, besides being shockingly perverse and patently illegal. It is, therefore, liable to be set aside by this Court, in exercise of the jurisdiction vested in it by Section 34 of the 1996 Act.
Submissions of Mr. Makkar
7. Responding to the aforesaid submissions of Mr. Mehta, Mr. Sudhir Makkar, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent, contends thus:
(i) The respondent has, for the purposes of the present dispute, no objection to the petitioner either using the word Quantum as part of the name of its University or even to the use of Quantum University as the name of the petitioner institution.
(ii) The objection of the respondent is to the domain name quantumuniversity.edu.in, specifically to the SLD quantumuniversity. The arbitral proceedings were not with respect to trade mark infringement but with respect to domain name infringement, in that the petitioner was using a domain name which was deceptively similar to the quantumuniversity formative domain names of the respondent. This was clearly impermissible.
(iii) Prior to 4 August 2017, the petitioner was functioning as Quantum School of Technology. Section 4 of the QU Act did not ipso facto entitle the petitioner to use the domain name quantumuniversity.edu.in, especially as, much prior thereto, a large number of quantumuniversity formative domain names, including quantumuniversity.com, quantumuniveristy.co.in and quantumuniversity.in stood registered in favour of the respondent. The adoption, by the petitioner, of the domain name quantumuniversity.edu.in, was bound to result in confusion, thereby making out a clear case for its cancellation.
(iv) The respondent has registered Doing Business As (DBA) status in Hawaii since 2 October 2009. The quantumuniversity formative domain names of the respondent, including the domain name www.quantumuniversity.com, are valid registrations granted to the respondent outside India (except quantumuniversity.co.in and quantumuniversity.in, which are registered in India). The respondent is well aware of the fact that it cannot seek registration of the domain name www.quantumuniversity.edu.in as the extension edu.in can be used only by educational institutions functioning in India. For that reason, the respondent is not seeking to use the extension edu.in as part of its domain name.
(v) The respondent, therefore, has no objection to the petitioners use of the extension edu.in. It, however, legitimately objects to the use of quantumuniversity as the SLD of the petitioners domain name, as this creates clear confusion with the registered quantumuniversity formative domain names of the respondent, including quantumuniversity.com.
(vi) The respondent is functioning as Quantum University since 2007. The domain name www.quantumuniversity.com stands registered in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the respondent in 2003. The respondent purchased the domain name www.quantumuniversity.com from the predecessor-in-interest in 2007. My attention was invited, in this context, to the recitals contained in paras 1 to 3 of the complaint in which the present award has come to be passed, which read thus:
1. The Complainant is engaged exclusively in providing online courses (including bachelors, masters, and doctorate degrees) and certification programs in holistic, alternative, natural, and integrative medicine based on the science quantum physics. The Complainant is in continuous and constant use of its trade name in relation to higher educational services at university level. The university was incorporated in 2007 and since then, the Complainant has been in continuous use of trade name “Quantum University. The trade name has also been registered with the Business Registration Division, Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs, Hawaii as the registered DBA (Does Business As) since 02.10.2009. Since at the relevant time, there was already a registered domain name “www.quantumuniversitv.com” (which was registered in 2003), the Complainant purchased the same from its then registered owner.
2. The Complainant has a valid and subsisting registration of its trade mark “Quantum University” with the USPTO under Class 41 for educational services in the nature of courses at the university level, educational services namely conducting classes, seminars, conference and workshops in the field of medicine etc., on 14.10.2014 vide Registration No. 4620311.
3. Over the years, the Complainant has registered and used the trade mark “Quantum University” through numerous domain names in relation to large scale online educational services. The Complainant has marketed, advertised and promoted their trade name all over the world including India through various registered internet domain names such as:
S.No
Domain Name
TLD
Creation Date
Expiration Date
1.
quantumuniversity.com
.com
10-10-2003
10-10-2023
2.
quantumuniversity.net
.net
01-07-2009
01-07-2021
3.
quantumuniversity.org
.org
02-07-2009
02-07-2021
4.
quantumuniversity.biz
.biz
11-01-2010
10-01-2021
5.
quantumuniversity.me
.me
11-01-2010
11-01-2021
6.
quantumuniversity.tv
.tv
11-01-2010
11-01-2021
7.
quantumuniversity.us
.us
11-01-2010
10-01-2024
8.
quantumuniversity.co
.co
05-04-2011
04-04-2021
9.
quantumuniversity.careers
.careers
05-03-2014
05-03-2022
10.
quantumuniversity.academy
.academy
10-03-2014
19-03-2022
11.
quantumuniversity.training
.training
26-03-2014
26-03-2022
12.
quantumuniversity.education
.education
02-04-2014
02-04-2022
13.
quantumuniversity.institute
.institute
02-04-2014
02-04-2022
14.
quantumuniversity.foundation
.foundation
22-05-2014
22-05-2022
15.
quantumuniversity.info
.info
22-05-2014
22-05-2023
16.
quantumuniversity.mobi
.mobi
22-05-2014
22-05-2023
17.
quantumuniversity.ws
.ws
22-05-2014
22-05-2023
18.
quantumuniversity.reviews
.reviews
04-06-2014
04-06-2022
19.
quantumuniversity.community
.community
18-06-2014
18-06-2022
20.
quantumuniversity.vision
.vision
02-07-2014
02-07-2022
21
quantum.university
.university
29-07-2014
29-07-2022
22
quantumuniversity.university
.university
30-07-2014
30-07-2022
23
quantumuniversity.healthcare
.healthcare
22-11-2014
22-11-2023
24
quantumuniversity.degree
.degree
14-01-2015
14-01-2022
25
quantumuniversity.school
.school
03-06-2015
03-06-2022
26
quantumuniversity.courses
.courses
23-09-2015
23-09-2022
27
quantumuniversity.college
.college
29-09-2015
29-09-2022
28
quantumuniversity.center
.center
09-11-2016
09-11-2021
29
quantumuniversity.international
.international
09-11-2016
09-11-2023
30
quantumuniversity.life
.life
09-11-2016
09-11-2023
31
quantumuniversity.online
.online
09-11-2016
09-11-2023
32
quantumuniversity.store
.store
09-11-2016
09-11-2023
33
quantumuniversity.world
.world
09-11-2016
09-11-2023
34
quantumuniversity.co.in
.co.in
27-04-2018
27-04-2022
35
quantumuniversity.guru
.guru
27-04-2018
27-04-2022
36
quantumuniversity.in
.in
27-04-2018
27-04-2022
37
quantumuniversity.toda
.today
27-04-2018
27-04-2022
38
quantumuniversity.app
.app
08-05-2018
08-05-2022
39
thequantumuniversity.com
.com
06-03-2009
06-03-2021
40
thequantumuniversity.net
.net
01-07-2009
01-07-2021
41
thequantumuniversity.org
.org
02-07-2009
02-07-2021
42
quantum-university.co
.co
01-03-2018
01-03-2022
43
quantum-university.education
.education
01-03-2018
01-03-2022
44
quantum-university.net
.net
01-03-2018
01-03-2022
45
quantum-university.org
.org
01-03-2018
01-03-2022
(vii) The mark Quantum University is also registered in favour of the respondent by the USPTO on 14 October 2014. The registration certifies user, by the respondent, of the mark Quantum University since 1 September 2009.
(viii) The submissions of Mr. Mehta, apropos the right to use the mark University as part of its name, the right to award degrees in India, the enactment of the QU Act and Section 4 thereof, and the various provisions of the UGC Act to which Mr. Mehta alludes, are all irrelevant insofar as the issue in controversy is concerned. The sole controversy forming subject matter of the arbitral proceedings was whether the domain name quantumuniveristy.edu.in, of the petitioner, was deceptively similar to the quantumuniversity formative marks of the respondent including quantumuniversity.com in respect of which the respondent held domain name registrations prior to the registration of the domain name quantumuniveristy.edu.in in favour of the petitioner on 4 August 2017.
(ix) Inasmuch as the respondent was not operating as a University in India, and was not seeking to provide any services in India as a University, the reliance on Section 23 of the UGC Act was completely misplaced. Section 23 of UGC Act could not, however, be so construed as to prohibit the use, by any entity, of University as part of its mark in India. The respondent had not set up any university in India, and was not intending to do so. The services provided by the respondent were entirely online. The mere fact that those services could be accessed in India, would not result in the respondent falling foul of Section 23 of the UGC Act.
To support his submissions, Mr. Makkar placed reliance in paras 12, 18, 20 and 33 to 34 on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Satyam Infoway Ltd. v. Siffynet Solutions (P) Ltd3, paras 11, 13 and 14 of the decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Yahoo! Inc. v. Akash Arora4 and the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Dean Chandler v. Sazerac Brands LLC5
The impugned award
8. Before proceeding further, it is necessary to reproduce the relevant paragraphs from the impugned award, thus:
V. PARTIES CONTENSIONS
Complainants Version
*****
11. The Complainant states that according to Google’s report between 2009 and 2018, the Complainant has incurred expenditure of USD 17,904.75 on online advertisement of its educational services in India, which translates to approximately 17 million views of the Complainant’s advertisements in India.
12. It has been asserted that the Complainant has substantial Indian clientele and list of students from India and the various inquires/requests/correspondences from India has been filed with the Complaint as Exhibit C-15.
13. The Complainant contends that in 2018, it noted that the Respondent, sought to change its trade name to “Quantum University” in 2017 and that the Respondent was using the trade name “Quantum Global Campus” / “Quantum College”. The Complainant states that the Disputed Domain Name on 04 August 2017, with Education & Research Network (ERNET), India.
14. The Complainant contends that the Respondent, by application bearing no. 1838522 dated 10 July 2009, applied for registration of Trademark/name QUANTUM under the Trademarks Act,1999. The Complainant opposed the said application of the Respondent before the Trademarks Registry by filing objections on 06 April 2018 and the same is pending adjudication.
15. The Complainant stated that it issued a cease-and-desist notice dated 17 May 2018 demanding that the Respondent stop the usage of the name “Quantum University” and domain name “www.quantumuniversity.edu.in” with immediate effect as the same was deceptively similar to the Complainant’s trade name and domain name.
16. The Complainant mentions that in its response to the aforesaid notice, the Respondent contacted the Complainant directly by a reply dated 20 June 2018, wherein the Respondent did not dispute the usage of the domain name www.quantumuniversity.edu.in in relation to educational services, but rather notified the Complainant that it intended to enter into the arena of online courses as well. In the said reply the respondent stated as under:
3. That we have also been authorized to impart education also through the distance education system which means imparting education within the state through any means of information technology, communication such as multimedia, broadcasting, telecasting, online over internet, other interactive methods, e-mails, internet, computer, interactive talk and e-learning correspondence course, seminars, contact programs or a combination of any two or more such means.”
17. The Complainant states that by its letter dated 20 July 2018 it proposed that the Respondent revert to its original name “Quantum Global Campus” or any other name distinguishing the two universities, so as to remove any possible confusion for the public.
18. It is alleged that the Respondent did not reply to the said Complainant’s letter and has started holding online classes for their courses and launched a mobile application “My Quantum”.
*****
23. It is stated that the Registration of an identical and confusingly similar domain name evinces the Respondent’s bad faith with an intent to attract and divert internet users to its website, by creating a likelihood of confusion as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of its domain name by the Complainant.
All this is done to create confusion for the users and prospective students especially during the present times when online education has been become the norm across the globe.
*****
27. The Complainant being aggrieved by the conduct of the Respondent has invoked the present Arbitration under the INDRP Policy on the following grounds:
i. The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights
ii. The domain name was registered and is being used by the Respondent in bad faith.
iii. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in respect of the domain name www.quantumuniversity.edu.in.
RESPONDENTS REPLY
*****
32. That the Respondent has contended that as per Alexa Rankings of websites the domain name “quantumuniversity.edu.in” is Ranked No. 167629 in the world while the domain name “quantumuniversity.com” is Ranked No. 452980 in the world which shows that the Respondent is far more popular among the public and have a far greater audience as compared to the Complainant.
33. The Respondent has alleged that Complainant has failed to establish that:
i. That the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has right.
ii. The domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
iii. The respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name “www.quantumuniversity.edu.in.
34. The Respondent has denied that the Complainant is offering any legitimate degree or doctorate in the sphere of holistic alternative natural or integrative medicine. The Complaint on website published a disclaimer whereby it has admitted that the University has no authority to grant any “M.D.” The Respondent alleges that the degrees are fake certificate diploma degree which do not entitle degree holders to practice as naturopathic doctors.
35. The Respondent has denied that the Complainant has been an established institution in the field of medicinal education and the Complainant has failed to establish by which parameter it claims itself to have achieved “success”, as the Complainant has not been able to ensure that its institution gets accredited by the recognized accreditors. The Respondent has averred that the method and procedure adopted by the Complainant shows that it has been acting merely as a “Diploma mill” on the false facade of “University” to make money from the unaware students and practitioners. The Respondent has contended that none of the degrees, certificates or diplomas have been recognized or have any validity in India and the career and the resources of students/clientele must be safeguarded.
36. The Respondent has contended that as per archive.org which is a not-for-profit organization working on saving old websites since 1996 and the documents available in the public domain, it is clear that the Complainant was using its original website “iquim.” since its establishment and had never used its website quantumuniversity.com” till March 2017. It is only after this period that they stopped using their original website and started using ‘quantumuniversity’ in their various domain names which shows that only after the Respondent was granted the university status the Complainant with ulterior motives changed its domain name.
37. The Respondent has denied that the courses offered by the Complainant are similar to the courses offered by the Respondent. The courses offered by the Complainant are not recognized or accredited by Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA) or the U.S. Department of Education (USDE) or both. The Complainant has also not established that the courses offered by it have been recognized by any legislation or statutory body. The Respondents stated that the courses offered by the Respondent are as per Rules prescribed by the Pharmacy Council of India and consequently the contention that the courses offered by the Respondent are similar to the courses offered by the Complainant holds no water. The Respondent contends that the online courses offered by Quantum University are not as per the norms and rules of the legislature and other statutory body in India. The Respondent further contends that the Complainant has failed to show that the students who are interested in the courses offered by the Complainant would get deceived or confused with the courses that are offered by the Respondent. The details regarding the online traffic received by the Complainant shows that it is evident that the Complainant is not an acclaimed institution or possess well-known trade name. The online traffic received by the Complainant’s website as per the “Alexa” ranking is way below the Respondent’s website.
38. The Respondent has denied that it has intentionally changed its name to create confusion for the user and prospective student. The said name was adopted as per the enactment by which the status of the university was granted to the Respondent. The name “quantum” has been used by the Respondent before the registration made by the Complainant in the name of International Quantum University for Integrative Medicine INC.
VI. DISCUSSIONS AND FINDINGS
*****
32. It is the case of the Complainant that the Disputed Domain Name “www.quantumuniversity.edu.in” was registered by the Respondent on 04 August 2017. The Complainant states that the disputed domain name is creating confusion as the same is identical/ similar to the Complainant’s Domain Names. The Disputed Domain Name conflicts with the legitimate rights and interests of the Complainant
33. The Complainant has contended that both the Complainant and the Respondent are engaged in the same industry i.e., education, offering similar courses at the university level.
34. The Complainant has also contended that till recently the Respondent had no online courses in offer, however, the Respondent is authorized to impart education through distance learning through various modes including online over the internet and recently has come up with an online application to impart education online. The Respondent in its Written Defence also does not deny this.
35. The Complainant in support of its contention has submitted a few illustrations of confusion over the Disputed Domain Name. One such incident is relating to the All India Council for Technical Education which is a statutory body and a national-level council for technical education which accredits postgraduate and graduate programs under specific categories also cannot distinguish between the domain names. Complainant has contended that this fact has been unrebutted by the Respondent in its Written Defence.
36. The Complainant asserts that it is the prior user of the word “Quantum” as well as the trade name “Quantum University” and the domain names having the phrase “quantumuniversity”.
37. The Complainant has contended that the Respondent could not have been unaware of the Complainant’s domain name/s as even in 2017 (when the Respondent got the Disputed Domain Name registered ) . By then the Complainant had 36 domain names registered in its favour. It is also pertinent to note that the Respondent, does not dispute in its Written Defence, the Complainant’s 45 registered domain names with the phrase “quantumuniversity”.
38. The Complainant in the Complaint has asserted that the Respondent knew about the Domain Name of the Complainant as under:
a. The Respondent knew of the Complainant’s domain name, yet they chose to change their domain name which establishes bad faith (para 7(c)(iii) at pages 9 and 10 of the Complaint)
b. This fact was to the knowledge of the Respondent as a general online search would have directed the Respondent to the Complainant’s site (page 7 of the Complaint).
However the Respondent has not controverted the above assertions.
39. The Respondent has objected to the case of the Complainant and raised various defences in response to the same. The Respondent has contended that the Complainant’s Complaint is not based on truth as the Original civil suit no.10 of 2019 L.M.D Educational and research Foundation and another vs. Dr. Paul Drouin, Quantum University, is pending adjudication before District Judge Dehradun has not been disclosed in the present proceedings.
40. The Tribunal has hereinabove considered the Respondent’s contention regarding the pendency of the Suit acting as a bar to the present arbitration proceedings. However, to consider the aspect of concealment by the Complainant it may be noted that the Respondent has maintained a stoic silence on the aspect of whether the Complainant was served in the Suit proceedings. The Tribunal notes that the Respondent has not placed orders in the civil suit proceedings on record. The Complainant has in support of its contention, along with its Rejoinder produced the online case of the Suit status as per the website of the District Judge Dehradun. The online case status also reveals that the suit is still at the stage of service. Hence the Complainant’s contention that it had no prior knowledge of the Suit initiated by the respondent/plaintiff and remains unserved gains credence and is accepted by the Tribunal.
41. The Respondent has contended that L.M.D. Educational and Research Foundation is a “Trust” and that Quantum University is a “University” which is a statutory body under the Quantum University Act, 2016 declared under clause 3 of Article 348 of the Constitution of India. The documents filed by the Respondent along with its Reply show that on June 21, 2008, the Respondent was granted approval by the All India Council for Technical Education for the establishment of Quantum School of Technology. The objects of the University have been mentioned by the Respondent and noted by the Tribunal.
42. The Respondent’s contention regarding the registration of L.M.D. Educational and Research Foundation as a Trust with the Sub-Registrar Dehradun in 2007 is not germane or relevant to the issue involved in the present arbitration relating to the domain name “www.quantumuniversitv.edu.in”. The fact regarding the registration of L.M.D. Educational and Research Foundation as a Trust and the AICTE approved are not in dispute nor does have a bearing on the disputed domain name “www.quantumuniversitv.edu.in” or the service mark “Quantum University” or the internet presence of the parties
43. The Respondent has contended that it was using the word “Quantum” as a right openly since 2006. The Tribunal notes that the Respondent has not placed any evidence or documents on record in support of its contention that Respondent was using word “Quantum” as a right openly since 2006. Even if Respondent’s contention were to be taken at face value, the said contention in no manner advances the case of the Respondent in the present proceedings. The dispute in the present proceedings does not relate to the usage of the word “Quantum” but the trade name/domain name “Quantum University”. It is established that Complainant’s trade name is registered with the Business Registration Division, Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs, Hawaii as the registered DBA (Does Business As) since 02 October 2009 and subsisting registration of its trademark “Quantum University” with the USPTO establishes that the Complainant has intellectual property rights and ownership in the name “Quantum University” and in the disputed domain name which is identical to the service mark in which the Complainant has rights. The Tribunal on careful consideration of the evidence placed on record by both parties is of the view that the Complainant has been able to establish ownership of rights in the service mark “Quantum University” and it has been in continuous use thereof since 2009 through 45 domain names concerning its online educational services.
44. The Respondent’s contention that Quantum University is a “University” which is a statutory body under the Quantum University Act, 2016 is not relevant for the purposes of the present arbitration proceedings as the issue in question relates to the domain name “www.quantumuniversity.edu.in” which the Complainant has inter alia alleged is identical and confusingly similar to the Complainant’s name, trademark and service mark. The Tribunal notes that the Respondent has admitted in its Written Defence at Paragraph 24 that the Respondent applied for the website “www.quantumuniversity.edu.in” only in January 2018 after it was granted university status by the Legislature. Thus, Complainant’s contention that Respondent was previously operating under the trade name “Quantum Global Campus” is accepted by the Tribunal.
45. The Tribunal notes that the Respondent has not denied in its Written Defence, that even when the Respondent was applying for the website in January 2018, Complainant had 36 domain names registered with the word “Quantum” and having the phrase “Quantum University”. Furthermore, the Respondent has not disputed the fact that Complainant as on date has 45 registered domain names with the phrase “Quantum University”.
46. The Respondent’s primary contention in its Written Defence is based on the elevation of the Respondent college with the name and style of Quantum University under the Quantum University Act, 2016. The Tribunal is however of the view that the fact of the elevation is not a relevant consideration for the present proceedings and does not in any manner address the Complainant’s contention that the Respondent’s domain name is identical and/or confusingly similar to the trade name being used by the Complainant
47. It is an undisputed fact that the Complainant and the Respondent are engaged in the same industry i.e. education, offering similar courses at the university level. The Complainant’s contention regarding the confusingly similar domain name is established from the evidence placed on record by the Complainant, namely that the Complainant received an email dated 06 January 2018 from the All India Council for Technical Education meant for the Respondent and emails addressed by Prof. Saini who was intending to correspond/communicate with the Respondent marked numerous e-mails to the Complainant at “vicechancellor@quantumuniversity.com” alongside the Respondent at chairman@quantumeducation.in. This contention of the Complainant remained unrebutted.
*****
50. The Tribunal is unable to accept Respondent’s contention that Complaint filed by the Complainant is prohibited by law. Respondent has not placed on record the relevant provision of law which prohibited the Complainant from making the Complaint under the Policy. The Tribunal is of the view that the Complaint relating to the domain name is not prohibited under any law. Respondent has made a bald averment regarding the Complaint being purportedly prohibited by law without specifying or alluding to the law which contains the prohibition if any. Hence the contention raised by Respondent regarding prohibition under law is misplaced and stands rejected.
51. The Respondent’s defence is based on the argument that as per the University Grants Commission Act, 1956, the right of conferring degrees can only be exercised by a University incorporated under a Central or State Act or by an institution deemed to be a University. Since Complainant is not a University within the meaning of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956, Complainant cannot award degrees. The Tribunal is unable to accept the Respondent’s contention as the issue relating to the validity of the degrees awarded by the Complainant is not the subject matter of the present arbitration proceedings or relevant to the usage of the domain name “www.quantumuniversity.edu.in”.
52. The Respondent’s defence based on the argument that since the domain extension “edu.in” has specifically been created by the Government of India for Academic / Educational / Research activities for Indian Educational Institutes, hence the same would not impeach the rights of any other website or domain. The Tribunal is of the view that the domain extension in itself does not serve to dispel the confusion in the minds of the online public. The domain name with the words “quantumuniversity” is identical and confusingly similar to the 45 domain names held by the Complainant containing the trade name “quantumuniversity”. The Tribunal thus does not find any merit in the said submission advanced by the Respondent.
53. The Respondent has also contended that the Complainant is an unauthorized body of USA and has no status and no consent of any legislature or Government of USA or any accreditation body by Government of USA as depicted by the Complainant at its website. The said contention is strongly disputed by the Complainant which has contended that though the Complainant’s courses are not accredited by an accredited agency recognized by the United States Secretary of Education, however, the Complainant’s degree programs are accredited by over a dozen professional certification boards and enables students to earn their bachelor’s, master’ s, doctorate and PhD degrees. It has further been contended that after graduation, students from the Complainant can apply directly to several boards to become board certified.
54. The Tribunal has carefully considered the rival submissions is of the view that the alleged lack of accreditations in respect of the courses offered by the Complainant is irrelevant under the INDRP Policy. The absence of accreditations or insufficient accreditations is not an issue that is the subject matter of the present arbitration proceedings.
55. The Tribunal does not find any merit in Respondent’s contention that Complainant is offering degree programs in violation of the degrees recognized by the UGC. The validity and sanctity of an online degree offered by a foreign university is an aspect which is not in issue in the present proceedings.
*****
58. The Respondent has further contended that in India, Foreign Universities are required to obtain a certificate of equivalence from the Association of Indian Universities and the Complainant is not part of the said association. Paragraph 4(3) of Advisory to Students for seeking admission to programs of studies promising qualification/ degree from foreign universities says that as of now equivalence is not accorded foreign degrees awarded under distance/open/online/virtual/home studies/private mode. The Respondent has thus alleged that as the Complainant is only offering online degrees it makes their degree invalid/fake in India. The Tribunal on careful perusal of the advisory issued by the Evaluation Division Association of Indian Universities (AIU ) placed on record by the Respondent notes that the same clearly advises students to read the Information Brochure of the AIU on the equivalence of Foreign Qualification /Degrees. The Advisory also cautions students that equivalence is granted to students only if the degree in question fulfils the eligibility conditions and that equivalence is not accorded to foreign degrees awarded under the Distance/ Online/ Virtual/Home Studies/Private mode. The said fact is an aspect which is required to be considered by prospective students prior to enrolling for a course with the University. The issue involved in the present arbitration does not relate to the equivalence attached to the degree awarded by the Complainant or the lack of it. The Tribunal is of the opinion that the fact that the degree offered by the Complainant does not fulfil the test for certificate of equivalence does not bar the Complainant from offering a course nor does it have any bearing on the domain names already held by Complainant. The validity of the degrees offered by the Complainant is not in question in these proceedings and hence this Tribunal refrains from passing any observations or findings regarding the same.
59. The Complainant’s contention that the Respondent started holding online classes for their courses and launched a mobile application ” My Quantum” and is seeking to increase its online presence by offering online courses has strongly been objected to by the Respondent. The Respondent has contended that it was only using the application for its students studying under various on- campus programs being offered by the Respondent and to inform them regarding their attendance, marks etc. It has further contended that in India to impart distance/ online education, approval from Distance Education Bureau is required which at present was not available with Respondent . In the future, however, if and when the Respondent acquired the permission, the Respondent has contended that it would offer distance/ online degrees. The Tribunal on consideration of the rival contentions is of the view that the intention of the Respondent to hold online study in future will add to the existing confusion vis a vis “Quantum University” and “quantumuniversity.edu.in”.
*****
61. The Respondent has contended that it is using “Quantum” since 01 April 2006 and has filed an application for the trade mark of the word “Quantum ” under class 41 to the Controller General of Patent, Design and Trade Marks vide application Number 1838522 dated 10 July 2009 and this clearly shows that Respondent is a prior user of the word “Quantum”. The Tribunal is, however, of the view that the said contention fails to address the material issue as the dispute pertains to the domain name “quantumuniversity” and not ‘Quantum’. The Respondent’s contention regarding the submission of trademark application is misplaced as the Complainant issued a Notice of Opposition dated 09 November 2018 in relation to the registration of Trademark ” Quantum” vide application no. 2489450 in Class 42 under the Trade Mark Act, 1999 and the matter is pending before the Trade Mark Registry limited to the registration of the trademark “Quantum” and not “Quantum University”.
*****
67. The Respondent in its Written Submissions in addition to the defences raised in its Written Defence/ Objections contended that the present arbitration is not just about the use of the domain name “quantumuniversity” but also of the fact that who is legally entitled to use the word “university” in the Indian context and for Indian students. The Respondent’s contention regarding the scope of the present arbitration including within its ambit the entitlement of parties to use the word “university” in the Indian context and for Indian students is misplaced and rejected. The issue in question in the present arbitration proceedings relates to the domain name “www.quantumuniversitv.edu.in” which the Complainant has inter alia alleged is identical and confusingly similar to the Complainant’ s name, trademark and service mark. The Respondent has not shown any impediment operating against the Complainant from offering online courses or using the name “Quantum University”, which Complainant claims it has been using world over.
*****
79. Accordingly, the Arbitral Tribunal shall deal with each of the elements as under:
(a) The Registrant’s domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a name, trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
i. The trademark QUANTUM UNIVERSITY have been used by the Complainant since 2007. The Complainant owns domain names with its brand QUANTUM UNIVERSITY in several countries. A careful consideration of the Trademark registrations, tradename registration and extracts of the WHOIS records filed by the Complainant establish that the Complainant owns and holds intellectual property rights in the name, trademark and brand QUANTUM UNIVERSITY in India and other jurisdictions and the Complainant owns the domain names quantumuniversity.com and quantumuniversity.in.
iii. In Yahoo! Inc. v Akash Arora & Anr. (1999 PTC (19 ) 210 Delhi ), the Delhi High Court injuncted the use of domain name ‘yahooindia.com’ in a suit filed by Yahoo! Inc., the owner of the trademark “Yahoo” and the domain name
iv. In eBay, Inc v. Progressive Life Awareness Network, WIPO Case No. D2001-0068, the UDRP returned a finding that the domain name
v. The registered trademark of the Complainant, “QUANTUM UNIVERSITY” and the domain names quantumuniversity.com, quantumuniversity.org, quantumuniversity. university, quantumuniversity.online are distinctive and the disputed domain name “quantumuniversity.edu.in” bears the Complainant’s registered trademark “QUANTUM UNIVERSITY” in its entirety. Considering the similarity between the Complainant’s trademark and the domain name “QUANTUM UNIVERSITY” and the disputed domain name “quantumuniversity.edu.in” of the Respondent and based on the unrebutted evidence placed on record by the Complainant. The Arbitral Tribunal finds that an average consumer would be led to believe that the Complainant and the Respondent or the disputed domain name are related. After taking into consideration the facts of the present case and the settled law on the issue, the Arbitral Tribunal finds that the disputed domain name “quantumuniversitywork.in” is identical and confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trademarks “QUANTUM UNIVERSITY and as also the domain names quantumuniversity.org, quantumuniversity.online. Accordingly, the Arbitral Tribunal holds that the requirement of the first element in the INDRP Policy paragraph 4(a) is satisfied.
vi. Based on the submissions and evidence filed by the Complainant, it is established that the Complainant is a university operating from the United States of America, offering exclusively online courses and certification programs in holistic, alternative, natural and integrative medicine based on the science of quantum physics. The Complainant incorporated “Quantum University” on 5 February 2007 and registered its trade name as “Quantum University” on 02 October 2009 with the Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs. Complainant’s trademark “quantum university” is a registered in the United States patent and trademark office since 14 October 2014, which records that the first use by the Complainant was on 1 September 2009. The Complainant has a substantial Indian clientele as evident from Exhibit C-15. Complainant has 45 domain names with the words “Quantum University” since 2009 and has offered its educational services through its website “www.quantumuniversity.com” which is in registration since 10 October 2003.
vii. The Respondent by its own admission applied for the domain name “quantum university.edu.in” on 04 August 2017 and sought to change its trade name to “Quantum University” only in January 2018 after it was granted university status by the Quantum University Act, 2016.
viii. The fact that the domain name “quantumuniversity.edu.in” is identical and confusingly similar to the trade name/ domain names held by the Complainant having the words “quantum university” stands proved by the evidence placed on record by the Complainant. One such incident relating to the All India Council for Technical Education, a statutory body and a national-level council for technical education which accredits postgraduate and graduate programs under specific categories having issued an official communication on the address belonging to the Complainant. Another instance has been when one Prof. Saini who was intending to correspond/communicate with the Respondent marked numerous e- mails to the Complainant at “vicechancellor@quantumuniversity.com” alongside the Respondent at chairman@ quantumeducation.in. The respondent has not been able to rebut the evidence placed on record by the Complainant regarding the confusing similarity to the domain names/trade names held by the Complainant and has admitted the same at page 28 of the Written Defence filed by the Respondent.
ix. The Respondent and Complainant are both engaged in providing educational services at the university level. Although the respondent has contended that the courses offered by the Complainant are unaccredited and unrecognised by the UGC in India, the similar nature of the courses has only added to the confusion from the disputed domain name
x. As per WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0, the standing or threshold test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name. This test typically involves a side-by-side comparison of the domain name and the textual components of the relevant trademark to assess whether the mark is recognisable within the disputed domain name. While each case is judged on its own merits, in cases where a domain name incorporates the entirety of a trademark, or where at least a dominant feature of the relevant mark is recognizable in the domain name, the domain name will normally be considered confusingly similar to that mark for purposes of UDRP standing.
xi. The documentary evidence placed on record by the Complainant reveals that the Complainant is the registered owner 45 domain names containing the trade name quantum university which is entirely contained in the disputed domain name of the respondent. A visual comparison of the disputed domain name quantumuniversity.edu.in and other domain names with QUANTUM UNIVERSITY of the Respondent with the Complainant’s name, trademark, brand QUANTUM UNIVERSITY and the domain names quantumuniversity.com, quantumuniversity.net, quantumuniversity.org, quantumuniversity.education, and quantumuniversity.online, demonstrate that “QUANTUM UNIVERSITY” is entirely contained in the disputed domain name of the Respondent.
xii. It is thus evident that in the present case the disputed domain name “www.quantumuniversity.edu.in” is identical and confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trademark /trade name quantum university and the domain names held by the Complainant in respect of which the Complainant obtained registration as early as in 2009. This Tribunal is of the view that owing to the worldwide presence of the Complainant’s business and its Indian clientele, the disputed domain name could make Internet users believe that such domain name and the contents of originating therefrom belong to the Complainant. In view of the above, the requirement of the INDRP Policy paragraph 4(a) stands satisfied.
(b) The Registrant has no rights or le