01Facts
The Petitioners provide software solutions for data transfer between Microsoft Excel and Tally, using the domain name www.exceltotally.in since 2010
p. 2, para 3The Respondent, owner of the "EXCEL" trademark, alleged that the domain name was confusingly similar and adopted in bad faith
pp. 2-3, para 6, 10Following a cease-and-desist notice, the Petitioners withdrew their trademark application and added a disclaimer of non-affiliation
p. 3, para 8The Respondent invoked the .IN Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (INDRP) before the National Internet Exchange of India (NIXI)
p. 3, para 10The Sole Arbitrator passed an ex parte award on 02.03.2026, directing the transfer of the domain name to the Respondent
p. 3, para 11The Petitioners challenged the award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, alleging lack of proper service and misapplication of the INDRP framework
pp. 4, para 13-1702Issues
i.Whether the Impugned Arbitral Award was vitiated by a violation of the principles of natural justice due to improper service of notice.
p. 9, para 39ii.Whether the learned Arbitrator erred in law by failing to independently establish "bad faith" as a mandatory jurisdictional requirement under Clause 4(c) of the INDRP.
pp. 24, para 63-6403Law Applied
Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which limits judicial interference in international commercial arbitrations to grounds of public policy and fundamental policy of Indian law
pp. 11-13, para 46-50The Supreme Court’s rulings in Ssangyong Engineering & Construction Co. Ltd. v. NHAI, abolishing "patent illegality" as a ground for international awards
p. 11, para 46Clauses 4, 6, and 7 of the .IN Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (INDRP), which require a complainant to cumulatively prove: (i) identical/confusing similarity, (ii) lack of legitimate interest, and (iii) registration or use in "bad faith"
pp. 21-23, para 58-62Provisions in the judgment · 8 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 2Section 18Section 31Section 34Section 48Section 75Section 81
Indian Contract Act, 1872 Section 23
04Reasoning
Regarding the procedural challenge, the court found no violation of natural justice as notices were sent to the email registered with the domain; a registrant cannot claim lack of service by failing to monitor their own contact details
p. 10, para 42On the merits, the court observed that the INDRP uses the conjunctive "and" in Clause 4, making the three requirements (similarity, lack of interest, and bad faith) cumulative
pp. 21-22, para 58-61 · pp. 26-27, para 72The court analyzed the Arbitrator's reasoning and found that the Arbitrator conflated "confusing similarity" under Clause 4(a) with "bad faith" under Clause 4(c)
pp. 28, para 75-76The court emphasized that Clause 7 of the INDRP requires proof of intentional conduct—such as a calculated design to mislead users for commercial gain or disrupt a competitor
pp. 25-26, para 69-71The court held that the Arbitrator failed to conduct an independent evidentiary inquiry into the Petitioners' intent, especially considering their descriptive use of the mark for interoperability and their subsequent bona fide conduct
p. 29, para 78 · pp. 32, para 80-8105Holding
The Court held that the Impugned Arbitral Award suffered from a foundational jurisdictional infirmity by failing to independently establish "bad faith" as mandated by Clause 4(c) of the INDRP
pp. 37, para 87-89The Court set aside the Arbitral Award dated 02.03.2026, finding it legally unsustainable under Section 34(2)(b)(ii) of the Act
p. 40, para 96Original Court PDF
Mr Pathan Imrankhan Zafarullakhan & Anr.vsMicrosoft Corporation
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
