Westmore · UDRP DecisionBabaramdevpatanjali.com
The Panel ordered transfer of <babaramdevpatanjali.com>. It found the domain confusingly similar to the Complainant’s PATANJALI trademark because the mark remained recognizable despite the addition of “Baba Ramdev.” The Panel also found that the unaffiliated and unauthorized Respondent lacked rights or legitimate interests and had used the domain to sell the Complainant’s products while trading on its goodwill. The Panel concluded that the Respondent registered and used the domain in bad faith to obtain commercial advantage from the reputation of PATANJALI.
The timeline behind babaramdevpatanjali.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 babaramdevpatanjali.com — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive — as part of UDRP Intelligence:
The decision illustrates a domain-name configuration that intensifies rather than reduces perceived affiliation: a trademark was combined with the name of the complainant’s co-founder and used for a commercial website offering goods in the complainant’s product sector. The Panel treated the recognizable incorporation of PATANJALI as sufficient for confusing similarity and relied heavily on the lack of authorization, overlapping commercial use, the mark’s reputation, and the absence of any rebuttal.
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 Patanjali Ayurved Limited v. Saurabh A, A2Z Solutions Case No. D2021-0688 1. The Parties The Complainant is Patanjali Ayurved Limited, India, internally represented. The Respondent is Saurabh A, A2Z Solutions, India. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <babaramdevpatanjali.com> is registered with Rebel Ltd (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 8, 2021. On March 8, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On March 10, 2021, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on March 10, 2021, 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 amendment to the Complaint on March 12, 2021. The Center verified that the Complaint, together with the amendment to 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 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on March 12, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was April 1, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on April 6, 2021. The Center appointed Maninder Singh as the sole panelist in this matter on April 12, 2021. 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 That the Complainant Patanajli Ayurved Limited is a company formed and registered under Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office in India. Patanjali Ayurved Limited is in the business of procuring, processing, manufacturing and marketing of herbal products including medicines, cosmetics and food products, beverages, personal and home care products, extracts and so many similar commodities. The disputed domain name <babaramdevpatanjali.com> was created on March 4, 2014. The Complainant has submitted evidence showing that the disputed domain name resolved to an e-commerce platform offering medicial and cosmetic products. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant It has come to the Complainant’s attention that there is a website at the disputed domain name <babaramdevpatanjali.com>, which is involved in the selling of goods manufactured by the Complainant or its associated company. According to the web pages of dispute domain name, “A2Z solutions” is the firm who is operating the website. The domain nameis identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights. The Complainant submits that it is the owner of the common law trademark rights in PATANJALI trademark and all other intellectual property rights associated with the use of the PATANJALI trademark as it relates to the well established brand in India and even in the worldwide market as well. The Complainant further submits that it is the registered owner for the trademark PATANJALI under the Trademark Office in India. The Complainant is also the registered owner for the trademark PATANJALI in various countries under the Trademark Act viz . Australia, Switzerland, European Union, Republic of Korea, Norway, New Zeeland, Oman, Philippines, Russian Federation, Singapore, United Arab Emirates, Mauritius, etc . The Complainant also submits that it is also the applicant with the regard to the mark PATANJALI in various other countries viz . Bangladesh, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Bhutan, Thailand, Malaysia, Kuwait, Indonesia, United Kingdom, Canada, United States of America, etc . The Complainant contends that it has been continuously using the mark PATANJALI since 2006. The Complainant contends that the use of word “patanjali” by the registrant of the disputed domain name is confusing as it causes the public to believe that Respondent is acting on behalf of or under the authority of the Complainant, and also violates the Complainant’s trademark rights to the mark PATANJALI. The Complainant also contends that it has never given either the Respondent or his association/company any authority to operate the disputed domain name by using the name “Patanjali” and even have not given him any authority to operate, maintain or register a website by using the registered mark PATANJALI of the Complainant. The Complainant contends that the Respondent have no association with the Complainant. The Complainant contends that the Respondent is also using the registered trademark PATANJALI on the disputed domain name and also selling the products of the Complainant, which are procured from the unauthorized market. The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical and/or confusingly similar to the mark in which the Complainant has earlier rights. Neither the Complainant nor its board of managers, have authorized to use of the confusingly similar and/or identical name by the Respondent. The Respondent, through the disputed domain name, is involved in online selling of products manufactured by the Complainant or its associated companies The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name. That Complainant submits that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the domain name because the Complainant has not granted any permission to the Respondent to use the disputed domain name. The Complainant submits that Respondent do not meet any of the following situations enumerated in paragraph 4(c) of the policy: (a) The Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name has no connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services. The Respondent has no authority to govern the registered trademark PATANJALI. The Respondent has not been given the authority to act or speak on behalf of the Complainant. (b) The Respondent has not been “commonly known by” the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the name of the Complainant. The disputed domain name is used to confuse the public and the Respondent is taking the undue advantage of the goodwill of the Complainant’s trademark. (c) The Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name, without intent for commercial gain misleadingly to divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue. The Complainant also submits that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name to create a website which tarnished the trademark or service mark at issue since it includes malicious statements about the food products. The domain namewas registered and isbeing used in bad faith The Complainant submits that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of the Complainant. The Complainant submits that it is in the business of procuring, processing, manufacturing, and marketing of herbal products including medicines, cosmetics, and food products, beverages, personal and home care products, extracts, and other similar commodities and that the Respondent is selling the products, which are manufactured by the Complainant, but are being procured by the Respondent from unauthorized market. The Complainant further submits that the Respondent also uses the disputed domain name to attempt to attract Internet users for personal gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainants’ mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the Respondent’s website The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name containing the mark PATANJALI further confuses the public as to the source of the information included on the website. The Complainant also submits that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor, the Respondent is using the disputed domain name in bad faith, and the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name creates confusion as to the source of the information found on the website under the disputed domain name. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Panel is obliged to take note of the relevant fact, which is available in the public domain, in relation to Baba Ramdev. Baba Ramdev is a co-founder of Patanjali Ayurved Ltd., i.e . the Complainant. The Panel observes that Complainant has furnished evidence that it has prior trademark rights in the mark PATANJALI. From the evidence placed on record the Panel finds that PATANJALI is a well-known brand not only in India but it has significant presence in various other countries across the world. The Panel finds that disputed domain name <babaramdevpatanjali.com> incorporates the Complainant’s registered trademark PATANJALI in its entirety. The Panel, therefore, concludes that the disputed domain name <babaramdevpatanjali.com> is confusingly similar to the trademark in which the Complainant has rights. Where the relevant trademark is recognizable within the disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) would not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Select UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.8. The Complainant has therefore succeeded in establishing the first element of the test in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Panel observes that the Complainant has made out a case proving its rights in the trademark PATANJALI. The Complainant enjoys goodwill and reputation for the mark/name registered by it. The Panel has no doubt that the disputed domain name incorporates the well known and famous trademark PATANJALI of the Complainant. The Panel observes that the Respondent is in no way affiliated with the Complainant nor has he been authorized by the Complainant to use its trademark, or to seek registration of any domain name incorporating said mark. Furthermore, the Respondent has no prior rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Panel has further observed that registration of the Complainant’s trademarks preceded the registration of the disputed domain name <babaramdevpatanjali.com>. The Panel finds that the Respondent is offering and also selling the products of the Complainant, procured from the unauthorized market [as alleged in the complaint and respondent has not filed any response/ reply thereto rebutting these claims], through the disputed domain name by riding on the goodwill and reputation of the Complainant (noting the composition of the disputed domain name). The Panel has no doubt that registration of disputed domain name by the Respondent is not bona fide . The Panel also finds it useful to refer to and rely upon Drexel University v. David Brouda , WIPO Case No. D2001-0067 , holding that rights or legitimate interests cannot be created where the user of the domain name at issue would not choose such a name unless he was seeking to create an impression of association with the Complainant. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the Panel has no difficulty in accepting that the Respondent has nothing to prove its bona fide use of the disputed domain name as the Respondent has not submitted any rebuttal of the Complainant’s contentions. The Respondent has no legitimate interests or rights in the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the Complainant succeeds under the second element of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith In the facts and circumstances of this case, the Panel has no hesitation in holding that being fully aware of the commercial value, operations, and significance of the Complainant’s trademark/name PATANJALI, the Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name <babaramdevpatanjali.com> to take commercial advantage of the substantial goodwill and reputation of the Complainant. The Panel observes that the disputed domain name has been registered by the Respondent subsequent to the Complainant’s relevant trademark registrations and is being used in bad faith. In this regard, the Panel would also like to refer to decision in DHL Operations B.V. vs. Ali Kazempour, WIPO Case No. D2004-1094 , wherein it was observed that the registration of a domain name in the name of a famous mark, of which the respondent had knowledge, may in any case, be considered strong supporting evidence of bad faith. Accordingly, the Complainant has succeeded in establishing the third element under 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 <babaramdevpatanjali.com> be transferred to the Complainant. Maninder Singh Sole Panelist Date: April 26, 2021
Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.
What Westmore sees around babaramdevpatanjali.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.