Skip to main content

WIPO Administrative Panel orders Korean national to transfer the domain biotiquekorea.com to Bio Veda Action Research, owner of popular Indian cosmetics brand BIOTIQUE.

Bio Veda, owner of the registered trade mark BIOTIQUE, filed a complaint under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy before the World Intellectual Property Organization against a Korean national (respondent) for having parked the domain name biotiquekorea.com.

It contended that the domain name was confusingly similar to the mark BIOTIQUE; the respondent lacked legitimate interest or rights therein and that the domain name was registered in bad faith.

The Administrative Panel noted that the BIOTIQUE mark was registered in favour of Bio Veda in several countries and it had a significant online presence on major e-commerce websites, including those in Korea. Given that the disputed domain name merely adds a geographic location  to the mark BIOTIQUE, it is not likely that the respondent came up with the disputed domain name independently without the trademark BIOTIQUE in mind.

The Panel concluded that mere addition of a geographic term to the mark demonstrated the respondent’s knowledge of the similarity between the registered mark and disputed domain. That it was holding the domain name passively and not carrying on any commercial activity from it, assisted in a finding of bad faith in the facts.

Bio Veda Action Research Private Limited (India), and H.W. Cheong (Republic of Korea); before the Administrative Panel, WIPO; order dated 17 April 2017

Most Recent

News & Insights

VIEW ALL
Thought Leadership
Dec 19, 2025

First published on Express Computer. Authored by Subroto Kumar Panda The notification of the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Rules, 2025, marks

The DPDP: An 18-month compliance imperative for the C-suite
News & Updates, Thought Leadership
Dec 16, 2025

‘First published on India Business Law Journal’ By: Pravin Anand and Dr. Ajai Garg Artificial Intelligence (AI) is fuelling one of the most significant

Law can keep us safe from superintelligence
News & Updates
Dec 05, 2025

The High Court of Delhi in a significant interim ruling, “AB SKF vs M/S PARAMOUNT BEARING CO. & ORS.”, CS(COMM) 963/2025, dated 19/11/2025 has clarified

Distinction Between Order 38, Rule 5 and Order 39, Rules 1-2 CPC in the Context of “Maintenance of Status Quo”
News & Updates
Nov 26, 2025

Authored by Pravin Anand There are areas of intellectual property law where one can sense, quite literally, the convergence of disciplines that do not

When Art Meets Science in Trademark Law: Reflections on India’s First Smell Mark