Dmsl.com

The timeline behind dmsl.com

Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.

Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.

ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Deepak Mining Solutions Limited v. Steve Ward, J.D. Irving Limited IT Div Case No. D2026-2135 1. The Parties The Complainant is Deepak Mining Solutions Limited, India, represented by Photon Legal, India. The Respondent is Steve Ward, J.D. Irving Limited IT Div, Canada. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <dmsl.com> (the “Disputed Domain Name”) is registered with Register.com (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on May 18, 2026. On May 19, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Name. On May 20, 2026, 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 sent an email communication to the Complainant on May 26, 2026, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar. 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 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on June 1, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was June 21, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on June 24, 2026. The Center appointed Nick J. Gardner as the sole panelist in this matter on July 9, 2026. 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. page 2 4. Factual Background The Complainant, is a company incorporated in India in August 2008. It is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Deepak Fertilisers and Petrochemicals Corporation Limited (“DFPCL”), an Indian conglomerate founded in 1979. The Complainant is engaged in the manufacture and supply of mining chemicals, including technical ammonium nitrate, and in the provision of mining consultancy services, principally within India. On May 21, 2025, the Complainant filed seventeen Indian trademark applications comprising or incorporating the term “DMSL”, in a range of classes. The Panel notes that at the time of this Decision, the Complainant owns Indian Trademark Registration No. 7017931 for DMSL DEEPAK MINING SOLUTIONS LIMITED (figurative) registered from May 21, 2025, and Indian Trademark Registration No. 7017853 for DMSL PARTNERS IN UNLOCKING VALUE (figurative) registered from May 21, 2025. These registrations have a user detail indicating prior use of the trademarks since as early as October 14, 2024. The Complainant additionally asserts unregistered (common law) rights in DMSL, said to have arisen through use of the term as its corporate and business identifier since its incorporation in 2008. The evidence adduced in support consists principally of financial and corporate information concerning the Complainant’s parent company, DFPCL (group turnover, market capitalisation, and capital expenditure on a technical ammonium nitrate project), rather than material directed specifically to the trade or public recognition of DMSL as a trademark distinct from the corporate group of which it forms part. The Disputed Domain Name was created on July 13, 1996. WhoIs records disclosed by the Registrar identify the registrant as Steve Ward, with an organisation/technical contact of “J.D. Irving Limited IT Div”, of Canada. The registration record was last updated on October 30, 2023. As at the date of the record before the Panel, the Disputed Domain Name did not resolve to any active website; a browser attempting to access the site returned a “DNS_PROBE_FINISHED_NXDOMAIN” error, while separate domain-status logs in the record show the Disputed Domain Name and its “www” equivalent returning server error codes. The Complainant has annexed material which it describes as showing the Disputed Domain Name being offered for sale, although the corresponding screenshot in the record before the Panel appears to show that the Disputed Domain Name is taken and contains material generated by the Registrar’s brokerage service suggesting they may be able to assist in purchasing it – this does not appear to be an offer for sale made by the Respondent. The Complainant has also annexed material showing that the Disputed Domain Name was inactive at the time of filing the Complaint. The Complainant states that it made prior attempts, both directly and via the Registrar, to contact the Respondent with a view to acquiring the Disputed Domain Name, and that these attempts went unanswered. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the Disputed Domain Name. Notably, the Complainant contends that the Disputed Domain Name is identical to its DMSL mark, in which it holds both pending trademark applications and unregistered common law rights arising from its use of DMSL as its core business identifier since 2008. The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name, having made no bona fide use or demonstrable preparations for use, not being commonly known by the name “dmsl”, and not making any legitimate noncommercial or fair use, the Disputed Domain Name instead being passively held and offered for sale. page 3 The Complainant further contends that the Disputed Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith, relying upon the Respondent’s continued passive holding, the alleged offer for sale (see above), the Respondent’s failure to respond to the Complainant’s outreach, and the resulting prevention of the Complainant from reflecting its mark in the corresponding “.com” domain name. The Complainant acknowledges that the Disputed Domain Name was registered in 1996, but submits that the Respondent’s subsequent conduct nonetheless establishes bad faith use and registration for the purposes of the Policy. The Complainant requests transfer of the Disputed Domain Name. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Preliminary Issue: No Response The Panel notes that no communication has been received from the Respondent. However, given the Complaint and Written Notice were sent to the relevant addresses disclosed by the Registrar, then the Panel considers that this satisfies the requirement in paragraph 2(a) of the UDRP Rules to “employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice”. Accordingly, the Panel considers it is able to proceed to determine this Complaint and to draw inferences from the Respondent’s failure to file any Response. While the Respondent’s failure to file a Response does not automatically result in a decision in favor of the Complainant, the Panel may draw appropriate inferences from the Respondent’s default (see, e.g., Verner Panton Design v. Fontana di Luce Corp, WIPO Case No. D2012-1909). Substantive Matters To succeed, in accordance with paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must satisfy the Panel that: (i) the Disputed Domain Name is identical with or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; (ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name; (iii) the Disputed Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. 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. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Select UDRP Questions (“WIPO Overview 3.1“), section 1.7. The Disputed Domain Name reproduces the term “DMSL” in its entirety, the generic Top-Level Domain (“.com”) being disregarded for comparison purposes as a standard registration requirement (WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.11). The threshold question is whether the Complainant has rights, for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, in a trademark or service mark to which the Disputed Domain Name may be compared. Although the Complainant makes no claim of registered trademarks in the Complaint, it has provided certificate of registrations of two trademarks mentioned above containing the term “dmsl”. The Panel finds that the dominant element of the Complainant’s trademarks is recognizable within the Disputed Domain Name. Therefore, the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s marks. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.7. page 4 The Panel however notes that the Complainant’s claim to unregistered common law rights dating from 2008 is thinly evidenced: the material submitted speaks principally to the financial scale of the Complainant’s parent group rather than to the acquired distinctiveness of “DMSL” itself as a source identifier recognised by the relevant trade or public, of the kind ordinarily required under WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.3. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests It is unnecessary for the Panel to reach a concluded view on this element, given its finding below that the Complaint fails under paragraph 4(a)(iii). C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith This element is dispositive of the Complaint. Paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy requires the Complainant to establish that the Disputed Domain Name was both registered and is being used in bad faith. As WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.8.1 explains, where a domain name has been registered before a complainant’s trademark rights accrue, panels will not normally find bad faith on the respondent’s part, since the registrant could not have contemplated the complainant’s then non-existent rights, save in the exceptional circumstances addressed in section 3.8.2, where a respondent registers a domain name in anticipation of a complainant’s imminent, but not yet accrued, trademark rights. That exception has no application here. There is nothing in the record to suggest, and the Complainant does not contend, that the Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name in 1996 in anticipation of the creation, twelve years later, of an Indian company that would subsequently adopt DMSL as a business identifier, and file trademark applications for it a further seventeen years after that. On the contrary, the chronology definitively excludes any possibility that the Respondent had the Complainant, or its yet-to-exist rights, in mind when registering the Disputed Domain Name. The Panel also notes the user detail in the Indian Trademark Registry for the registered trademarks, which shows a date of prior use of October 14, 2024, which is still many years after the registration of the Disputed Domain Name. The Complainant expressly acknowledges the 1996 registration date, but seeks to overcome it by reliance on the Respondent’s alleged “subsequent conduct”, in particular passive holding and an alleged offer for sale. The Complaint expressly states as follows: “The Complainant acknowledges that the domain name dmsl.com was originally registered in 1996. While this date precedes the Complainant’s formal trademark filings and incorporation, the Respondent’s subsequent conduct, including long-term passive holding, failure to make any legitimate use, and the present offering of the domain name for sale, establishes ongoing bad- faith use under the Policy”. Even if the Respondent’s conduct did establish ongoing bad faith (which the Panel does not consider to be the case – see below) that is not enough for the Complaint to succeed – it is well established that the requirements for showing bad faith registration and use are conjunctive. The Complainant simply cannot show the registration was made in bad faith given the chronology and hence the Complaint cannot succeed. The doctrine of passive holding, as articulated in Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No. D2000-0003, and reflected in WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.3, operates to treat a respondent’s continued passive holding of a domain name as use in bad faith where the domain name was registered in bad faith in the first place, having regard to factors such as the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the complainant’s mark. It does not operate retrospectively to convert an innocent registration, made decades before the complainant’s rights existed, into a bad faith registration. As bad faith registration cannot be established on this record, the question of bad faith use, whether by passive holding or otherwise, does not arise. As to the alleged offer for sale, this appears to be an offer by the Registrar’s brokerage service to assist in a purchase attempt, rather than an offer made by the Respondent. In any event, even had such an offer been substantiated, the offering for sale of a short, non-distinctive acronym is not of itself objectionable absent evidence that the offer was targeted at this Complainant specifically, which is not the case here. page 5 The Complainant’s remaining contention, that the Respondent has prevented it from reflecting its mark in the corresponding “.com” domain name contrary to paragraph 4(b)(ii) of the Policy, fails for the same reason: that provision requires, at minimum, that the Respondent’s registration be motivated by an intention to deprive the trademark owner of a corresponding domain name, which is impossible where, as here, the registration predates the trademark owner’s very existence. Nor does the Respondent’s non-response to the Complainant’s unsolicited approach seeking to acquire the Disputed Domain Name support an inference of bad faith registration made decades earlier; a registrant’s silence in the face of an unsolicited approach is not, without more, evidence of bad faith. For these reasons, the Panel finds that the Complainant has failed to establish that the Disputed Domain Name was registered in bad faith, and the third element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy has not been established. D. Reverse Domain Name Hijacking Paragraph 15(e) of the Rules provides that, if after considering the submissions, the Panel finds that the Complaint was brought in bad faith, for example in an attempt at Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (“RDNH”) or to harass the domain-name holder, the Panel shall declare in its decision that the Complaint was brought in bad faith and constitutes an abuse of the administrative proceeding. The mere lack of success of the complaint is not, on its own, sufficient to constitute reverse domain name hijacking. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 4.16 identifies, among the circumstances in which panels have found RDNH, facts demonstrating that the complainant knew it could not succeed as to any of the required elements, including registration of the disputed domain name well before the complainant acquired trademark rights, and facts demonstrating that the complainant clearly ought to have known it could not succeed under any fair interpretation of the facts reasonably available to it. The Panel considers this to be such a case. The Complaint itself discloses, on its face, that the Disputed Domain Name was registered in 1996, some twelve years before the Complainant’s incorporation and twenty-nine years before its first trademark filing. This is not a fact that emerged only in a Response or through independent investigation by the Panel; it was known to the Complainant, and to its representative, at the time the Complaint was drafted, and is expressly acknowledged within it. Rather than concluding, as the consensus view reflected in WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.8.1 plainly required, that bad faith registration could not be established on such a timeline, the Complainant proceeded to construct an argument around the doctrine of passive holding that misapprehends its function, treating it as capable of curing a registration that could not, on any view, have targeted the Complainant. The Complainant is represented by a counsel, who executed the certification required by the Rules, paragraph 3(b)(xiii), thereby certifying that the assertions in the Complaint were, to the best of the Complainant’s knowledge, warranted under the Rules and applicable law. The Panel is entitled to assume that counsel signing that certificate undertook the necessary research to ensure the Complaint was properly founded (see Voys B.V., Voys United B.V. v. Thomas Zou, WIPO Case No. D2017-2136). Basic legal research, and indeed the Complainant’s own annexed evidence, would have revealed the fatal chronological difficulty apparent on the face of the Complaint. The Panel further notes that the Complainant’s trademarks postdated the Disputed Domain Name by many years and its claimed common law rights were supported by evidence directed substantially at its parent company rather than at DMSL itself, in a niche, business-to-business sector with no demonstrated reputation outside India. Proceeding against a respondent identified in the WhoIs record as associated with a bona fide and well established Canadian corporate group, on the basis of a four-letter acronym registered as a domain name three decades ago, without any evidentiary basis for supposing the Respondent could have had the Complainant in contemplation, compounds the difficulty. In these circumstances, the Panel finds that the Complaint was brought in bad faith and constitutes an abuse of the administrative proceeding within the meaning of the Rules, paragraph 15(e), and so finds and declares. page 6 7. Decision For the foregoing reasons, the Complaint is denied. The Panel finds that the Complaint has been brought in bad faith and constitutes an attempt at Reverse Domain Name Hijacking. /Nick J. Gardner/ Nick J. Gardner Sole Panelist Date: July 17, 2026

Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.