Westmore · UDRP DecisionReliancebroadband.org, Reliancecustomercare.com, Reliancejioinfocomm.com
The Panel ordered all three disputed domain names transferred to Reliance Industries Limited. It found them confusingly similar to the Complainant’s RELIANCE trademark, found no evidence that the Respondent had rights or legitimate interests, and held that the registration and use of three RELIANCE-formative domain names targeted the mark and created a likelihood of confusion under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.
The timeline behind reliancebroadband.org
Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.
Westmore reconstructs the full history behind reliancebroadband.org — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive — as part of UDRP Intelligence:
How each disputed name was decided in this proceeding.
The decision illustrates how a portfolio of related domain names can reinforce findings of targeting and bad faith where each name reproduces an established house mark and adds terminology linked to the trademark owner’s services or corporate identity. It also shows that a domain corresponding to a group company name can present an especially strong confusing-similarity record when supported by trademark and commercial-use evidence.
Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.
WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Reliance Industries Limited v. Domains By Proxy, LLC / Vicky Sood, Angel Services Case No. D2014-0759 1. The Parties The Complainant is Reliance Industries Limited of Mumbai, India, represented by Anand & Anand, India. The Respondent is Domains By Proxy, LLC of Scottsdale, Arizona, United States of America / Vicky Sood, Angel Services of Thane, Maharashtra, India. 2. The Domain Names and Registrar The disputed domain names <reliancebroadband.org>, <reliancecustomercare.com> and <reliancejioinfocomm.com> are registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on May 8, 2014. On May 9, 2014, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name <reliancejioinfocomm.com>. On May 10, 2014, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name <reliancejioinfocomm.com> that differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on May 20, 2014 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint with the additional disputed domain names <reliancebroadband.org> and <reliancecustomercare.com> on May 22, 2014. On May 23, 2014, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names <reliancebroadband.org> and <reliancecustomercare.com>. On May 23, 2014, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. In response to a notification by the Center that the Complaint was administratively deficient, the Complainant filed an amendment to the Complaint on May 28, 2014. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to the Complaint and the amended 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 June 2, 2014. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was June 22, 2014. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on June 23, 2014. The Center appointed Harini Narayanswamy as the sole panelist in this matter on July 1, 2014. 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. 4. Factual Background The Complainant is an Indian private sector enterprise, with businesses in oil and gas exploration and production, petroleum refining and marketing, petrochemicals, retail and telecommunications. Its flagship company, Reliance Industries Limited (RIL) is a fortune 500 company. The Complainant is the proprietor of the trademarks RELIANCE, RIL, and JIO. Its earliest trademark registration in India for the RELIANCE mark is dated September 27, 1978. The Complainant has provided a list of its trademark registrations for the RELIANCE mark under various classes: Serial No. Trademark Registration Number Class Registration Date 1. RELIANCE 341213 23 September 27, 1978 2. RELIANCE 492355 42 June 8, 1988 3. RELIANCE 754734 05 August 13, 1997 4. RELIANCE 754735 09 August 13, 1997 5. RELIANCE 754736 10 August 13, 1997 6. RELIANCE 754737 12 August 13, 1997 7. RELIANCE 754738 14 August 13, 1997 8. RELIANCE 754740 17 August 13, 1997 9. RELIANCE 754741 19 August 13, 1997 10. RELIANCE 754742 20 August 13, 1997 11. RELIANCE 754743 22 August 13, 1997 12. RELIANCE 754746 29 August 13, 1997 13. RELIANCE 754747 30 August 13, 1997 14. RELIANCE 871167 09 August 13, 1999 15. RELIANCE 873973 03 August 31, 1999 16. RELIANCE 873974 04 August 31, 1999 17. RELIANCE 873975 05 August 31, 1999 18. RELIANCE 873978 08 August 31, 1999 19. RELIANCE 873979 10 August 31, 1999 20. RELIANCE 873981 12 August 31, 1999 21. RELIANCE 873982 13 August 31, 1999 22. RELIANCE 873983 14 August 31, 1999 23. RELIANCE 873984 15 August 31, 1999 24. RELIANCE 874027 16 August 31, 1999 25. RELIANCE 873985 17 August 31, 1999 26. RELIANCE 873988 20 August 31, 1999 27. RELIANCE 873990 22 August 31, 1999 28. RELIANCE 874033 24 August 31, 1999 29. RELIANCE 874034 25 August 31, 1999 30. RELIANCE 873991 26 August 31, 1999 31. RELIANCE 873992 27 August 31, 1999 32. RELIANCE 873993 28 August 31, 1999 33. RELIANCE 873994 29 August 31, 1999 The Complainant is the registered proprietor of the JIO trademark, registered in class 9 under registration number 2247460 dated December 9, 2011 and has a pending application for the JIO trademark in class 38 under application number 2247360, dated December 9, 2011. The Complainant has filed copies of its trademark registrations as evidence. The disputed domain name <reliancejioinfocomm.com> was created on February 1, 2013. The disputed domain names <reliancebroadband.org> and <reliancecustomercare.com> were created on February 17, 2013 and May 5, 2013 respectively. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant states it was initially incorporated as Mynylon Limited in May 1973 in the state of Karnataka in India. It merged with “Reliance Textiles Limited” in 1973, a company that was incorporated by the promoters of the Complainant in 1966. The Complainant states it thereby acquired the rights to the RELIANCE mark from 1966 and states it has been continuously using the mark for its business activities. The Complainant states it has laid the foundation in the industrial core sectors of textiles, mineral exploration, refining, chemicals, finance and telecommunication. The Complainant states its group’s annual revenues are in excess of USD sixty six billion. The Complainant states it has expanded and diversified and its numerous companies use Reliance or the RIL (acronym) in their trade names and as such RELIANCE or RIL is the house mark of the Complainant’s group. The Complainant states the acronym RIL is also used by the stock exchanges and the media to identify the Complainant’s group. The Complainant states it owns the largest and the most complex crude oil refinery in the world with an aggregate production and refining capacity of 1.24 million barrels per day and it claims to be the fifth largest producer of polypropylene in the world and a global leader in polyester yarn production. The Complainant states it entered into a partnership with British Petroleum in 2010 to globally source and market natural gas in India and describes the partnership as a joint venture between two hydrocarbon majors of the world. “Reliance Jio Infocomm Limited” is the telecom arm of the Complainant and is set to launch telecom 4G services in India. The Complainant has filed the incorporation details of the company showing its date of incorporation is February 15, 2007 and newspaper reports about the company. The Complainant states that Reliance is a well-known brand appearing in various promotional campaigns and supports many events across the world. Its retail arm “Reliance Retail Limited” is well known and it claims it is the second largest retail chain in India that sells food, groceries, apparel, lifestyle and home improvement products, electronic goods, farm implements and inputs. Reliance Retail has over thousand four hundred stores operating under the names: Reliance Fresh, Reliance Retail and Reliance Digital. Some well-known international brands sold through the Reliance Retail outlets according to the Complainant are: Hamleys, Steve Madden, Quick Silver, Roxy and Diesel. Reliance Digital offers products for sale online and the web pages from the Reliance Digital website are filed as evidence. The Complainant states it has diverse businesses around the world and has won numerous awards. It has filed a list of awards won by the Chairman of its group Mr. Mukesh Ambani. The Complainant states it owns more than five thousand domain names incorporating the trademarks RELIANCE or RIL and has registered about four thousand domain names with the JIO mark. Its shareholders, customers and other Internet users access the websites linked to its domain names. The Complainant requests for the transfer of the disputed domain names on grounds that the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which it has rights and that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names and the disputed domain names were registered in bad faith and are being used in bad faith. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings The Policy permits a trademark owner to challenge the registration of a domain name if the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to such trademark. Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant is required to establish three requirements in order to obtain the remedy of transfer of the disputed domain names. These are: (i) The disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and (ii) The Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names; and (iii) The disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith by the Respondent. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The first requirement of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy stipulates the Complainant has to establish the disputed domain names in the present case are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which it has rights. The Complainant has provided evidence of numerous trademark registrations for the RELIANCE mark. The Complainant has also adduced evidence of its unregistered or common law rights in the RELIANCE mark by filing financial details of its group, media reports pertaining to its groups activities and evidence that the media refers to the Complainant as “Reliance” or “RIL” and reference to several awards won by the Complainant’s group in recognition of its work. Based on the evidence filed by the Complainant, the Panel finds the Complainant has established its right in the RELIANCE mark in these proceedings. The three disputed domain names in the present case use the entire RELIANCE trademark along with the words: “broadband”, “customer care” and “jio infocomm”. The Complainant has argued that “Reliance Jio Infocomm Limited ” is the name of its company and the other generic words “broadband” and “customer care” are part of the services provided by the Complainant. The Complainant has further argued that use of its well known mark in its entirety in the disputed domain names, under the circumstances of the case, is itself sufficient reason for finding confusing similarity. The Complainant has provided evidence of Reliance Jio Infocomm Limited being the name of a company belonging to its group and has submitted evidence of publicly available records showing the said company is carrying on business under the said name and other details of the entity. The Complainant has stated the company Reliance Jio Infocomm Limited has won an auction for 4G Spectrum license and expects to launch 4G data services shortly. It further claims to be the first telecom operator in India to have a Pan Unified license to offer 4G telecom services including voice telephony under a single license. In preparation of its launch of its telecom services the Complainant states it has registered about four thousand domain names with the JIO mark and has provided a list of these domain names. The Complainant has also adduced evidence of its trademark registration for the JIO mark and it’s pending trademark application for the mark. The Complainant has provided evidence of newspaper reports pertaining to its company Reliance Jio Infocomm Limited. In the context of the present case where the Complainant has established its rights in the JIO trademark and has and shown use of the terms “Jio Infocomm” in commerce in connection with its telecommunication services, it is found that the Complainant has furnished sufficient proof of its use of the unique trade name Reliance Jio Infocomm Limited in connection with its mark. In the light of the evidence adduced by the Complainant, the use of the words “Jio Infocomm” with the trademark is found to render the disputed domain name <reliancejioinfocomm.com> confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. Regarding the disputed domain names <reliancebroadband.org> and <reliancecustomer.com>, the Panel finds the use of the generic words “broadband” and “customer care” with the trademark does not lessen the confusing similarity with the mark. See Lego Juris A/S v. Frank Park / Privacy Protection Services INC d/b/a Privacy Protection.org, WIPO Case No. D2014-0725 pertaining to the domain name <legoxmas.com>, where it was observed that it is a long established precedent that the use of well-known trademarks when paired up with different kinds of generic suffixes and prefixes results in confusing similarity of such domain names to the trademark. The Panel finds that the Complainant has successfully established the first element under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The second element under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires the Complainant to establish that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. The Complainant has argued that the Respondent has no rights to the combination of words “Reliance”, “Jio” and “Infocomm”. Based on the evidence filed by the Complainant, the Panel accepts this submission. The Respondent has not responded in these proceedings or shown any reason for registering the disputed domain name <reliancejioinfocomm.com> or the disputed domain names <reliancebroadband.org> and <reliancecustomercare.com>. The Panel finds there is no evidence on record that shows the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain names or has used the disputed domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. The Respondent does not appear to be using the disputed domain names in connection with any legitimate noncommercial or any fair use purposes. Further, the Complainant has clearly stated that the Respondent has no permission, authorization or license to use its trademark. There is therefore no indication of the Respondent having any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names containing the trademark of the Complainant. The Complainant has accordingly satisfied the second requirement of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The third element under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires the Complainant to establish that the disputed domain names were registered in bad faith and are being used in bad faith. The Complainant has argued that the Respondent misleads Internet users by posing to be the Complainant and causes initial interest confusion, which is not bona fide use of the disputed domain names. The Complainant further argues that the mere registration of the disputed domain names using the Complainant’s well-known trademark shows the Respondent’s prior knowledge of the Complainant’s trademark at the time of registration, which demonstrates the Respondent’s opportunistic bad faith. The Panel finds the Respondent has registered and used the three disputed domain names in bad faith. Further, the manner in which the Respondent is using the disputed domain names creates a likelihood of confusion with the RELIANCE mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the disputed domain names and as such it is considered bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain names as envisaged under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. The registration of three domain names using the RELIANCE trademark does indicate the Respondent is likely to have targeted the RELIANCE trademark and that such registration and use of the disputed domain names is likely to mislead or deceive the public or customers and suggests a connection between the disputed domain names and the owners of the RELIANCE trademark. In the light of all that has been discussed, it is found that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain names <reliancejioinfocomm.com>, <reliancebroadband.org> and <reliancecustomercare.com> in bad faith and is using the disputed domain names in bad faith. 7. Decision For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain names <reliancejioinfocomm.com>, <reliancebroadband.org> and <reliancecustomercare.com> be transferred to the Complainant. Harini Narayanswamy Sole Panelist Date: July 15, 2014
Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.
What Westmore sees around reliancebroadband.org
The decision is only the record. Westmore connects it to the cases, authorities, panelists, parties and domain evidence surrounding it.
A short, grounded explanation drawn only from this decision's record — not legal advice or a prediction.
Grounded in the Westmore record for this decision. Research/informational only — not legal advice or a prediction of any outcome.
The decision is only the beginning.
You've seen what happened. Now discover the deeper intelligence behind the case, the panelist, the parties and the authorities that matter.
Go beyond the public record: see how this case has been cited, find comparable decisions, analyze the panelist and apply the relevant authorities to your Matter.
Westmore Professional · $395/month
Research with UDRP IntelligenceWestmore AI drafts an attorney-review-ready UDRP response from your facts, grounded in the exact panel and closest precedent.
$895 one-time per matter · no subscription required. Self-help drafting aid — not legal advice.
Build your responseWestmore UDRP records draw on WIPO-indexed decisions and are provided for research and informational purposes only. Not legal advice, a clearance opinion, or a prediction of any outcome.