By Steve Levy
If you believed that domain name disputes were boring legal squabbles, think again. The recent UDRP case between ANI Technologies Pvt. Ltd.—better known as Ola, India’s ride-hailing giant—and a U.S.-based individual named Jeffrey Knepper over the domain name ola.com had all the makings of a digital soap opera.
The Players
On one side, we’ve got the Complainant, a tech-savvy mobility company with a global footprint and a trademark portfolio that includes “OLA” in various forms. They’ve been around since 2010 and have expanded into electric vehicles, cloud computing, and even AI. On the other side is the Respondent, a vintage watch dealer from the U.S., who ended up owning ola.com after a tangled story involving an inheritance, a money loan, and a court battle.
The Domain Drama
The domain name ola.com was originally registered way back in 1995 and supposedly is the acronym for “On-Line Auctions”. The Complainant claimed it was confusingly similar to their OLA trademark for ride-sharing and argued that the Respondent had no legitimate interest in it. They pointed out that the domain redirected to an eBay store selling wristwatches with no mention of the Complainant or its ride hailing services.
But here’s where it gets juicy: over several months, the Complainant had negotiated with someone named Mr. Bron C.F., who claimed to own the domain and agreed to sell it. Then, out of nowhere, Bron said he couldn’t transfer it due to a family dispute. It turns out that the real owner was his late father to whom the Respondent had loaned USD $170,000 secured by the domain name itself. After a court battle over the lack of repayment, the court awarded the domain name to the Respondent to satisfy the unpaid loan. After learning of this transfer, the Complainant approached the Respondent to buy the domain name but the new asking price was exponentially higher than what was previously agreed upon with Mr. Bron C.F.
The Accusations
The Complainant accused the Respondent of bad faith, saying he tried to jack up the price after learning about the Complainant’s interest. They claimed he was trying to make a quick buck by targeting the Complainant’s consumers by attempting to affiliate itself with their business. The Respondent fired back, saying he had every right to the domain and was simply using it to redirect traffic to his legitimate eBay wristwatch business.
The Verdict?
While the panel agreed that ola.com was identical to Complainant’s OLA trademark, the real question was whether the Respondent had legitimate rights and acted in bad faith. The decision dives deep into the nuances of domain ownership, inheritance, and commercial use and concluded that there was no bad faith by the Respondent. Although the Complainant provided some evidence of the notoriety of its mark, this did not extend to various parts of the world including the U.S. where the Respondent is based. Even if it were assumed that the Respondent would have heard about the Complainant or its trademark, the facts are clear that it was not targeting the OLA trademark when it obtained the domain name as collateral for the defaulted loan to Mr. Bron.
In the end, the Complainant was simply the victim of bad luck. This case is a reminder that in the world of domain names, timing, trademarks, and a little bit of family drama can make all the difference.