9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of Civil Courts vs. IN Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (INDRP) 2. Applicability of Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 3. Adequacy of Remedies under INDRP 4. Binding Nature of Arbitration Agreement Issue-wise Analysis: 1. Jurisdiction of Civil Courts vs. IN Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (INDRP): The plaintiffs filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction against the defendants for using the trademark 'CITI' as a domain name, transfer of the domain name "citi.in," and rendition of accounts for passing off and trademark infringement. The defendants argued that the suit should be dismissed due to the INDRP, which provides for arbitration of domain name disputes. The court examined whether the INDRP ousted the jurisdiction of civil courts. The court held that under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, jurisdiction of civil courts can only be ousted by an express or implied bar. Since there was no express bar in the INDRP, the court examined whether there was an implied bar. The court referred to several precedents, including the Supreme Court's decision in Dhulabhai v. State of M.P., which held that exclusion of civil courts' jurisdiction must be explicitly expressed or clearly implied, and even if jurisdiction is excluded, civil courts can examine cases where statutory provisions have not been complied with or where the statutory tribunal has not acted in conformity with fundamental principles of judicial procedure. The court concluded that the INDRP did not explicitly oust the jurisdiction of civil courts and that the policy provided only an alternative dispute resolution mechanism, not a statutory remedy. Therefore, the jurisdiction of civil courts was not excluded. 2. Applicability of Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996: The defendants contended that the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, particularly Section 5, excluded the intervention of civil courts in matters covered by the INDRP. The court examined whether the provisions of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act applied to the present case. The court noted that arbitration requires the consent of both parties to refer their dispute to arbitration, as provided under Section 7 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act. Since there was no arbitration agreement between the parties, the provisions of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, including Section 5, did not apply. The court emphasized that the INDRP did not mandate arbitration for the complainant (plaintiffs) but only for the registrant (defendants). 3. Adequacy of Remedies under INDRP: The court examined whether the remedies provided under the INDRP were adequate and sufficient for the plaintiffs. The INDRP limited remedies to the cancellation or transfer of the domain name and did not provide for other substantive reliefs such as injunctions, rendition of accounts, or adjudication of trademark infringement and passing off claims. The court concluded that the INDRP did not provide complete relief for the plaintiffs' claims, which included infringement of the trademark, passing off, and rendition of accounts. Therefore, the INDRP did not offer an adequate and effective alternative remedy, and the jurisdiction of civil courts was not ousted. 4. Binding Nature of Arbitration Agreement: The court examined whether the INDRP constituted a binding arbitration agreement between the parties. The court noted that the INDRP required the registrant to submit to mandatory arbitration proceedings if a complaint was filed but did not require the complainant to do so. The INDRP Rules of Procedure also indicated that the complainant's consent to arbitration was necessary. The court concluded that there was no binding arbitration agreement between the parties, and the mere registration of the defendants with the INDRP did not imply the plaintiffs' consent to arbitration. Therefore, the provisions of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act could not be invoked. Conclusion: The court held that the INDRP did not oust the jurisdiction of civil courts to deal with the present suit. The application filed by the defendants for rejection of the plaint was rejected. The court emphasized that the INDRP provided only an alternative dispute resolution mechanism and did not offer adequate and complete relief for the plaintiffs' claims. The parties were left to bear their own costs.
|
