LI Network
Published on: December 25, 2023 at 12:25 IST
Delhi High Court, clarified that Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act 1996 restricts the Court from interfering in matters of subjective satisfaction and interpretation of contractual conventions.
The judgment, delivered by Justice C. Hari Shankar, also explored the implications of the Supreme Court’s observations in Satyam Infoway Ltd. v. Siffynet Solutions Ltd., particularly in cases related to domain name infringement.
Case Background
The respondent had filed a complaint to cancel the domain name www.quantumuniversity.edu.in, alleging infringement of its prior-registered domain name www.quantumuniversity.com.
The petitioner, recognized as “Quantum University” by legislation in 2016, faced the complaint based on shared second-level domain (SLD) “quantumuniversity.” The respondent, located in Hawaii, invoked Clause 10 of the .IN Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (INDRP) for cancellation.
The arbitrator, applying INDRP, ruled in favor of the respondent, cancelling the petitioner’s domain name for bad faith registration. The petitioner challenged the arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Legal Arguments
The petitioner’s counsel, Senior Advocate Mr. Jayant Mehta, challenged the award on various grounds, including rendering the Quantum University Act, 2016 redundant, the respondent’s lack of eligibility to use “University” in its name, and failure to meet conditions under INDRP.
The respondent, represented by Senior Advocate Mr. Sudhir Makkar, argued that the issue was about domain name infringement, not trademark infringement. The respondent contended that the petitioner’s use of a deceptively similar domain name to the respondent’s ‘quantum university-formative’ domain names was the focus.
Court’s Analysis
The Court analyzed the scope of judicial interference under Section 34 and emphasized that intervention is only warranted if the arbitrator’s interpretation leads to patent illegality or perversity. The court refrained from re-entering subjective satisfaction findings by the arbitrator.
The Court referenced Satyam Infoway Ltd. v. Siffynet Solutions Ltd. to establish two key observations: the global nature of domain name rights and the INDRP’s aim to safeguard the public.
Conclusion
The Court dismissed the petition, upholding the arbitral award, as it found no grounds for interference under Section 34. The judgment reinforced the limited scope of judicial intervention in matters of contractual interpretation and subjective satisfaction in domain name infringement cases.
Case Details: QUANTUM UNIVERSITY v. INTERNATIONAL QUANTUM UNIVERSITY FOR INTEGRATIVE MEDICINE INC O.M.P (COMM) 260/2021
