The .IN dispute policy asks three questions, and the complainant must answer all three with evidence. Most lost complaints fail not on the law but on the file: a mark asserted without proof of rights, a registrant’s use not investigated, bad faith assumed rather than shown. This guide sets out what each element requires and what to put in front of the arbitrator.
Quick reference
| Element | What the complainant must show | Typical evidence |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Similarity | The domain is identical or confusingly similar to a name, trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights | Registration certificates; evidence of use and reputation; the domain itself |
| 2. No rights or legitimate interests | The registrant has none — a prima facie case shifts the burden | WHOIS; screenshots of the site; searches showing no business, mark or common name matching the domain |
| 3. Bad faith or unlawful purpose | Registration or use in bad faith, or for an illegal or unlawful purpose | Offers to sell; pattern of squatting; confusing content; passive holding with knowledge; phishing or fraud |
All three must be established. Two out of three is a dismissal.
Element one: rights and similarity
The complainant must have rights in a name, trademark or service mark. Registered rights are simplest — an Indian registration, or one anywhere else — but unregistered rights built on use and reputation qualify, and the Policy’s reference to a “name” lets a personal or trading name found a complaint. What the complainant cannot do is rely on a mark it does not own: a distributor complaining about the manufacturer’s mark, or a group company relying on a registration held by an affiliate without showing the connection, has a standing problem.
The domain must be identical or confusingly similar to the mark. The comparison ignores the suffix and looks at the second-level name. A domain that contains the mark in full is usually confusingly similar whatever is added to it — “brand-india.in”, “brandoffers.co.in”, “mybrand.in” — and misspellings a user would make are covered. Similarity is a threshold test, not a likelihood-of-confusion inquiry, and it is rarely where a complaint fails.
Element two: no rights or legitimate interests
The complainant has to prove a negative, so the arbitrators accept a prima facie case — the complainant shows what it can and the burden moves to the registrant. The Policy lists circumstances that would establish a legitimate interest, and the complaint should address each:
- Bona fide use — before notice of the dispute, the registrant used or made demonstrable preparations to use the domain in connection with a genuine offering of goods or services
- Commonly known — the registrant, as an individual or business, has been commonly known by the domain name, even without a trademark
- Legitimate non-commercial or fair use — without intent to profit from misleading consumers or tarnishing the mark
The complainant’s evidence is investigative: WHOIS showing who the registrant is; screenshots of the site at the domain, with dates, showing a parking page, a for-sale notice, pay-per-click links, a copy of the complainant’s site or nothing at all; searches of the trademark register and company records showing no mark or business in the registrant’s name; and, where the registrant is a former licensee or distributor, the agreement showing the licence ended.
Element three: bad faith or unlawful purpose
The Policy is broader than its global counterpart in two ways. It is satisfied by bad faith in registration or use — either — rather than both. And since 2020 it is also satisfied by registration or use for an illegal or unlawful purpose, which reaches phishing, fraud and domains used for activity that is unlawful whether or not it is aimed at the complainant.
The Policy lists circumstances that are evidence of bad faith:
- the domain was acquired primarily to sell, rent or transfer it to the mark owner or a competitor for more than out-of-pocket costs
- it was registered to prevent the mark owner from reflecting the mark in a domain, particularly where the registrant has a pattern of doing so
- it was registered primarily to disrupt a competitor’s business
- it is used to attract users for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to source, sponsorship or affiliation
The list is illustrative. Arbitrators have also found bad faith in passive holding of a domain identical to a well-known mark, in registration shortly after the complainant’s mark was announced or the parties’ relationship ended, in the use of false WHOIS details, and in a registrant’s history of adverse decisions. The single most useful document is a communication in which the registrant asks for money: an email quoting a price, a marketplace listing, a broker’s approach. Where none exists, a carefully worded enquiry from an investigator often produces one.
Defences that work
Genuine business. A registrant that was trading under the name before the complainant’s mark had any reputation, or that has a real business the domain describes, will usually keep the domain; the Policy is aimed at abusive registration, not at competing legitimate claims.
Generic or descriptive term. A domain that is a dictionary word or a common descriptive phrase, used for its descriptive meaning, is a weak target unless the registrant is plainly trading on the complainant’s mark.
Complainant’s delay. Not a defence in itself, but long acquiescence can undermine the inference of bad faith, particularly where the registrant has built a business in the meantime.
No rights in the complainant. The complainant cannot prove ownership of the mark it relies on, or its rights post-date the registration of the domain with nothing to show the registrant anticipated them.
The file
A complaint should be assembled as an evidence bundle, not a letter:
- Proof of rights — registration certificates, or evidence of use, advertising and recognition for unregistered rights
- WHOIS record for the domain, and the registration date
- Dated screenshots of the site, archived where possible
- Evidence of the registrant’s lack of legitimate interest — searches, the terminated agreement, the absence of any business
- Evidence of bad faith — the offer to sell, the pattern, the confusing content, the timing
- Any correspondence with the registrant
- The power of attorney and the fee
The whole submission is limited to 5,000 words, so the argument should be tight and the annexures should carry the weight.
Frequently asked questions
What must I prove in an INDRP complaint? Three things, all of them: that the domain is identical or confusingly similar to a name or mark in which you have rights; that the registrant has no rights or legitimate interests in it; and that it was registered or is being used in bad faith or for an unlawful purpose.
Do I need a registered trademark for an INDRP complaint? No. Rights in a registered or unregistered mark, in India or elsewhere, or in a name, are sufficient. A registration makes the first element straightforward.
What is evidence of bad faith under the INDRP? An offer to sell the domain for more than its cost, a pattern of registering others’ marks, registration to disrupt a competitor, use that creates confusion with the complainant’s mark, passive holding of a well-known mark, false registrant details, or use for an unlawful purpose such as phishing.
Is bad faith required in both registration and use? No. Under the INDRP either bad-faith registration or bad-faith use is enough, and since 2020 registration or use for an illegal or unlawful purpose also suffices. This is broader than the UDRP.
How does a registrant show a legitimate interest? By showing genuine use or preparations to use the domain for a real offering before the dispute, that it has been commonly known by the name, or that it is making legitimate non-commercial or fair use without misleading consumers.
What if the registrant registered the domain before my trademark? Bad faith is difficult to show where the domain predates any reputation in the mark, unless the registrant knew the mark was coming — an insider, a former partner, or a registration made on the day of an announcement.
Useful official resources
- .IN Registry — dispute resolution — the Policy text and published awards
- .IN Registry — WHOIS — registrant details
See our related notes on the INDRP process step by step and the UDRP for global domains.
A squatted .in domain and not sure the evidence is there yet? Talk to us.