Ala Technologies India Limited is engaged in the business of IT consulting, software development services and sale of proprietary software under its coined trademark/tradename "Quickthink" since 2003. It had registered i

The facts of the given case are similar to ThoughtworksIncv. Super Software Pvt. Ltd & Anr [Del] The Petitioner was able to show that no sooner than he came to know of the above domain name, it took prompt action by filing a complaint with NIXI. More importantly, the learned Arbitrator appears to have come to an erroneous conclusion that the trademark "ThoughtWorks" did not belong to the Petitioner. Again, no opportunity was afforded to the Petitioner. The impugned domain name contains only the Petitioner's trademark and yet no finding was returned on whether there was any similarity. The decision in Stephen Koenig v. Arbitrator, National Internet Exchange of India & Anr 186 (2012) DLT 43, which was subsequently upheld by the Division Bench of this Court because of the fact that a mere delay in lodging the complaint would not disentitle the aggrieved party from proceeding against the 'squatter". The Court is satisfied that in the present case, the learned Arbitrator failed to apply his mind to the facts on record. Indeed, a copy of the trademark registration certificate of the Petitioner was enclosed with the complaint and yet the learned Arbitrator failed to have noticed this fact. In any event, the complaint itself contained details of its various registrations. If there was any doubt, the learned Arbitrator ought to have sought a clarification from the Petitioner on this aspect as well. Importantly, no finding was returned on whether the use of the domain name by Respondent No. 1 would lead to confusion and deception. With the domain name taking up the entire name of the Petitioner, there could be no doubt that the use of such domain name by the Respondent would be deceptively confusing and erroneously indicate a connection of Respondent No. 1 with the Petitioner when there is none. For all of the aforementioned reasons, the Court is satisfied that the impugned Award is opposed to the fundamental policy of India as it has numerous glaring errors which appear on the face of the Award. Consequently, the Court sets aside the impugned Award and allows the petition but, in the circumstances, with no order as to costs. The situation given is similar to this case mentioned above. Accordingly, Ala Technologies may succeed in the complaint filed against Hermaan.