Westmore · UDRP DecisionAshokleylandlimited.com
The Panel ordered transfer of <ashokleylandlimited.com>. It found the domain confusingly similar to the registered ASHOK LEYLAND mark because it incorporated both the mark and the Complainant’s entire corporate name. The Respondent had no demonstrated rights or legitimate interests, and its use of the domain for a parking page with click-through links was found to be for commercial gain. Given the Complainant’s long-standing use of the mark and the domain’s confusion-based commercial use, the Panel found registration and use in bad faith under Policy paragraph 4(b)(iv).
The timeline behind ashokleylandlimited.com
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 ashokleylandlimited.com — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive — as part of UDRP Intelligence:
This decision illustrates a strong corporate-name domain fact pattern: the domain did not merely contain the trademark but reproduced the Complainant’s full name by adding “limited.” Combined with long-prior trademark use and sponsored links, including competitor links, that composition supported findings on confusing similarity, lack of legitimate interests, and confusion-based commercial bad faith.
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 Ashok Leyland Limited v. New Ventures Services Corp. Case No. D2015-0762 1. The Parties The Complainant is Ashok Leyland Limited of Guindy, Chennai, India, represented by M/s. DePenning & DePenning, India. The Respondent is New Ventures Services Corp. of Drums, Pennsylvania, United States of America. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <ashokleylandlimited.com> is registered with Network Solutions, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on April 28, 2015. On April 28, 2015, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On April 28, 2015, 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. 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 May 4, 2015. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was May 24, 2015. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on May 26, 2015. The Center appointed Syed Naqiz Shahabuddin as the sole panelist in this matter on June 3, 2015. 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 following summary sets out the uncontested factual submissions made by the Complainant: The Complainant, established in 1948 in India as Ashok Motors Limited, changed its name to ASHOK LEYLAND LIMITED on July 4, 1955. The Complainant manufactures, markets, and sells a wide range of motor vehicles, chassis, motors for land vehicles, and apparatus for locomotion by land (including commercial vehicles, couplings, motor parts, and fittings) under various trademarks, including the ASHOK LEYLAND trademark. The Complainant exports to over 30 countries worldwide with a turnaround in excess of USD 2.3 billion (2012-13). It is a leader in the bus markets of Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, and Mauritius and has significant presence in the Middle East and Africa. The Complainant has registered ASHOK LEYLAND as a trademark in various countries. Country Trademark Goods Valid Up To India ASHOK LEYLAND Machines and machine tools, motors and engines (except for land vehicles), machine coupling and transmission components (except for land vehicles), agricultural implements other than hand-operated; motor vehicles, chassis, motors for land vehicles, apparatus for locomotion by land including commercial vehicles, couplings motor p, and fittings August 27, 2017 Seychelles ASHOK LEYLAND Motor vehicles, motors for land vehicles, apparatus for locomotion by land including commercial vehicles, couplings, motor parts, and fittings February 1, 2030 Nigeria ASHOK LEYLAND Motor vehicles, chassis, motors for land vehicles, apparatus for locomotion by land including commercial vehicles, couplings, motor parts, and fittings January 30, 2030 Apart from the registration of ASHOK LEYLAND as a trademark, “Ashok Leyland” is also used by the Complainant: (a) as its commercial name, Ashok Leyland Limited; (b) as its domain name (being the official Ashok Leyland website) at “www.ashokleyland.com”. The disputed domain name was registered on December 13, 2013 and resolves to a website with sponsored links to the Complainant’s competitors, among others. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant asserts that ASHOK LEYLAND is a well-known trademark. The Complainant contends further that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s ASHOK LEYLAND trademark for the following reasons: (a) the disputed domain name comprises the Complainant’s ASHOK LEYLAND trademark as its dominant feature; (b) the inclusion of the generic top-level domain (gTLD) “.com” is inconsequential when determining similarities between domain names and trademarks; (c) the addition of the suffix “limited” does not detract from the overall impression formed by the public that the disputed domain name is owned by or related to the Complainant. In fact, the addition of the suffix “limited” includes the Complainant’s registered name in its entirety. The Complainant further contends that the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name because: (a) the Respondent has not adduced any evidence to indicate the Respondent’s rights to the disputed domain name; (b) the Respondent is not in any way related to the Complainant’s business, is not one of its agents, and does not carry out any activity or has any business with the Complainant. The Complainant has not licensed or authorised the Respondent in any way including to register or to use the disputed domain name; (c) the disputed domain name is being used by the Respondent solely for commercial gain, as it resolves to a parking page with click-through links. The Complainant further contends that the Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in dispute in bad faith and relies on the following: (a) the Complainant has not found any evidence to suggest that the Respondent has any rights or legitimate interests to the ASHOK LEYLAND trademark, including any license or authorization from the Complainant; (b) the Respondent is using the disputed domain name to intentionally attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of its website; (c) the Respondent is not using the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services but is instead seeking to ride on and usurp the Complainant’s reputation and goodwill in the ASHOK LEYLAND trademark. The disputed domain name will cause confusion and divert Internet users away from the Complainant’s official website. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings In order to succeed in its Complaint, the Complainant is required to establish the following elements set out under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy: (a) that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and (b) that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and (c) that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Panel is satisfied with the evidence adduced by the Complainant to evidence its rights to the ASHOK LEYLAND trademark. The ASHOK LEYLAND trademark is registered and appears to be used by the Complainant in various jurisdictions. The disputed domain name comprises not only the ASHOK LEYLAND trademark but also the entire corporate name of the Complainant. The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s ASHOK LEYLAND trademark for purposes of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Complainant’s assertions have not been rebutted by the Respondent to indicate whether it has any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. There was also no evidence put forward by the Respondent to indicate that the Respondent is licensed or authorised by the Complainant to use the ASHOK LEYLAND trademark. The Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name resolves to a parking page with click-through links. In light of the Respondent’s failure to rebut the Complainant’s assertions, the Panel finds no reason to doubt that the disputed domain name was used solely for commercial gain. In the circumstances, the Panel cannot find any rights or legitimate interests on the part of the Respondent to the words comprising the disputed domain name. Based on the above circumstances, the Panel is, therefore, satisfied that the second element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy has been proven by the Complainant. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel agrees with the contention by the Complainant that the Respondent had knowledge of the Complainant’s rights to the ASHOK LEYLAND trademark when it registered and started using the disputed domain name. The factors that were taken into account to arrive at this conclusion include the date of registration of the disputed domain name which was on December 13, 2013. This is 58 years after the Complainant started manufacturing, marketing, and selling its goods under the ASHOK LEYLAND trademark. Therefore, the Panel finds that the Respondent could not ignore the widespread and long use of the ASHOK LEYLAND trademark by the Complainant well before the disputed domain name was registered by the Respondent. The Panel cannot find any justification for the registration and use of the disputed domain name in such circumstances except to find that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name to intentionally attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of its website. As such, the Panel finds that bad faith has been demonstrated under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. 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 name <ashokleylandlimited.com> be transferred to the Complainant. Syed Naqiz Shahabuddin Sole Panelist Date: June 16, 2015
Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.
What Westmore sees around ashokleylandlimited.com
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.