A registrant grabbed wakefit.in, parked it on a pay-per-click page, and hid behind an incomplete address. Wakefit won it back under the INDRP — the tribunal confirming that even passive holding of an infringing domain, coupled with concealment, is bad faith.
The dispute
Wakefit Innovations Pvt Ltd — the Bengaluru D2C furniture and sleep-solutions company — secured transfer of wakefit.in by an arbitral award dated 28 February 2025. Wakefit holds multiple “WAKEFIT” registrations and operates at wakefit.co.
The disputed wakefit.in had been registered by an individual using only an email address and an incomplete location, with no verifiable contact details. Notices bounced, the registrant never responded, and the arbitrator proceeded ex parte. The domain led only to a parked page with PPC links to unrelated sites — a classic sign of domain monetisation.
Wakefit’s key arguments
- Trademark ownership — registered proprietor of “WAKEFIT” across classes, plus wakefit.co, which pre-dates the disputed domain.
- Use and reputation — supported by website screenshots and media coverage (no invoices/financials, but enough for goodwill).
- Identical domain — wakefit.in incorporates the mark entirely, differing only by the .in TLD, which panels consistently find insufficient to avoid confusion.
- No legitimate interest — no connection to “Wakefit” and no real business use.
- Bad faith — a parked PPC page aimed at misleading users and profiting from the brand.
The findings
The arbitrator agreed on all three INDRP elements:
- Confusing similarity — identical/confusingly similar to Wakefit’s mark and domain;
- No legitimate interest — no evidence of rights or genuine business; and
- Bad-faith registration — the PPC parked page plus efforts to obscure identity pointed to clear cybersquatting (echoing WIPO/INDRP precedent).
The domain was ordered transferred to Wakefit.
Why it matters
The decision reinforces that:
- mere registration of a domain containing a registered mark can trigger a dispute;
- passive holding — especially linked to PPC — can amount to bad faith; and
- concealing identity and not participating work against the registrant.
The takeaways
- Passive squatting is still squatting — you don’t need active misuse; a parked PPC page suffices for bad faith.
- A different TLD isn’t a defence — .in vs .co doesn’t dispel confusion.
- Hiding your identity backfires — concealment and non-participation count against the registrant.
- Protect your online assets proactively — register key domains before squatters do.
Frequently asked questions
Is passively holding a domain enough for bad faith under the INDRP? Yes — a parked page with pay-per-click links, plus concealment of identity, was held to amount to bad faith in the Wakefit case, even without active business use.
Does a different domain extension avoid confusion? No — wakefit.in was found confusingly similar to Wakefit’s mark and wakefit.co despite the different TLD.
What happens if the registrant doesn’t respond? The tribunal can proceed ex parte and decide on the complainant’s evidence, as it did for Wakefit.
Do I need financials to prove reputation? Not necessarily — Wakefit relied on website screenshots and media coverage to establish goodwill.
Useful official resources
- NIXI — .IN Registry and INDRP
- The Trade Marks Act, 1999