Osho World domain name dispute: Difference between revisions

From The Sannyas Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
mNo edit summary
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
Most of the information for this page is derived from Osho World's page at [http://photos.oshoworld.com/ofi/legal-case/osho-world-website-case/ Osho World Website case]


== Summary ==
In July 2000 [[Osho Dhyan Mandir, New Delhi|Osho Dhyan Mandir]], an Osho Meditation centre based in New Delhi, India won the right to use the name OSHO for its website [http://www.oshoworld.com OshoWorld.com] at the [http://www.adrforum.com/Domains National Arbitration Forum], USA. The case is considered as a landmark event in the ongoing efforts to bring Osho into the public domain.


In May 2001 [[Osho Dhyan Mandir, New Delhi|Osho Dhyan Mandir]], an Osho Meditation centre based in New Delhi, India won the right to use the name OSHO for its website [http://www.oshoworld.com OshoWorld.com] at the National Arbitration Forum in the United States of America. The case is considered as a landmark event in the ongoing efforts to bring Osho into the public domain. The summary of the case is as follows:
This is the transcript of the Forum's decision:


*Complainant – Osho International Foundation (OIF), New York
{| class = "wikitable" style="margin-left: 50px; width: 900px;"
*Respondent – Osho Dhyan Mandir and Atul Anand, New Delhi
|
*Arbitrator – M. Kelly Tillery Esquire (NAF)


On 7th June 2000, National Arbitration Forum (NAF) received a complaint from Osho International Foundation (OIF) pursuant to the Uniform Domain Name Policy of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), stating that:


== Complainants' claims ==
DECISION


1. OSHO and OSHO ACTIVE MEDITATIONS are trademarks of OIF and are registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
 
<u>Osho International Foundation v. Osho Dhyan Mandir and Atul
Anand</u>


2. The complainants rights for the above mentioned trademarks broadly cover the following goods and services: educational books and printed material in the field of religion and philosophy; pre-recorded audio and videotapes in the same fields and spiritual counseling and meditations.
 
Claim Number: FA0006000094990


3. The domain name OSHOWORLD.com is confusingly similar/identical to the complainants OSHO.com, OSHO.net and OSHO.org.
 
<u>PARTIES</u>


4. The respondents, by using the domain name OSHOWORLD.com that is in confusion with complainant’s trademarks, have intentionally and in bad faith attempted to acquire financial gain by attracting Internet users to its web site and other on-line locations.
     
Complainant is Osho International Foundation, New York, NY, USA ("Complainant").  
Respondents are Osho Dhyan Mandir and Atul Anand, New Delhi, India ("Respondents).


5. The complainants also operate the OSHO Commune International in Pune, India, which is the largest meditation centre in the world.
   
<u>REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME</u>


== Respondents' first counter-claims ==
     
The domain name at issue is "OSHOWORLD.COM", registered with Register.com.


In response to the above complaint, the respondents contended that:
 
<u>PANELIST</u>


1. The term OSHO refers to the widely known Indian spiritual mystic Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh
M. Kelly Tillery, Esquire


2. He was born in India, and served as a professor of philosophy at an Indian university. OSHO traveled all over India giving lectures and conducting meditation camps.
 
<u>PROCEDURAL HISTORY</u>


3. He moved to Pune in 1974 and started a commune with people from around the world.
     
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum ("The
Forum") electronically on 06/07/2000; The Forum received a hard copy of
the Complaint on 06/07/2000.


4. He lived in the USA from 1982 to 1985.
On 06/09/2000, Register.com confirmed by e-mail to The Forum that the
domain name "OSHOWORLD.COM" is registered with Register.com and that Respondent
Atul Anand of Respondent Osho Dhyan Mandir is the current registrant of
the name.


5. He adopted the name OSHO in 1989 and died in 1990.
On 06/12/2000, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative
Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of 07/05/2000
by which Respondents could file a Response to the Complaint, was transmitted
to Respondents via email, post and fax, and to all entities and persons
listed on Respondents’ registration as technical, administrative and billing
contacts by email.


6. It was in 1989 that he first used the word OSHO and before that the word was never used by any of the parties to the dispute.
On 7/10/00, pursuant to Complainant's request to have
the dispute decided by a Single Member Panel, The Forum appointed M. Kelly
Tillery, Esquire as Panelist.


7. The complainant filed the earliest trademark application on January 7, 1992.
   
<u>RELIEF SOUGHT</u>


8. Respondent Osho Dhyan Mandir is a non-profit, charitable organization registered under the Societies Act in India.
     
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondents
to Complainant.


9. OSHO is not a valid trademark for materials by or regarding OSHO, as there are more than 500 meditation centres around the world with OSHO in their names i.e. to say that OSHO is the term used by anyone who operates a meditation centre devoted to the teachings of OSHO.
   
<u>PARTIES' CONTENTIONS</u>


10. OSHO is the common name of the goods and services which the complainant provides by and regarding OSHO.
     
A. <u>Complainant</u>


11. Complainant committed fraud on the Patent and Trademark Office and has unclean hands because the Swiss based OIF is a different entity than the New York based Complainant or the Osho Commune in Pune, India.
 
Complainant contends that Respondents’ registered domain
name "oshoworld.com" is confusingly similar to Complainant’s registered marks
for "OSHO" including but not limited to USPTO Registration No. 2,174,607 for
"OSHO", Registration No. 2,180,173 for "OSHO", Registration No. 1,815,840 for
"OSHO" and Pending Application Serial No. 75683097 for "OSHO" and Pending Application
Serial No. 75834601 for "OSHO ACTIVE MEDITATIONS." Complainant also claims that
it maintains three (3) registered domain names "osho.com", "osho.org" and "osho.net"
all of which resolve into an active Web Site presumably operated by Complainant.


12. In the pending trademark application for OSHO Active Meditations, complainant stated that it used the mark OSHO as early as 1978. Noticeable fact is that Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh used the name in 1989 only.
Complainant acknowledges that the Osho name/mark originates
with the internationally known spiritual leader Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh, also
known as Osho. Complainant claims to operate a worldwide publishing operation
in the areas of meditation, body-mind-spirit philosophy and spirituality with
respect to the teachings of the mystic Osho. Complainant also claims to operate
the Osho Commune International in Poona, India.


13. Regarding the Domain name, the respondent said the complainant’s claim is preposterous and is tantamount to someone registering SAINT PETER for books by Saint Peter and then complaining when someone else registers SAINTPETERWORLD.com to express their love for St. Peter.
Complainant claims that Respondent registered "oshoworld.com"
in bad faith, that Respondent does not hold rights or legitimate interests in
respect of its domain name and that Respondent has intentionally attempted to  
attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its Web Site by creating a likelihood
of confusion with Complainant’s trademarks and service marks as to the source,
sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of Respondent’s Web Site.


14. The Complainants’ attempt to deprive the respondents from using the domain name is in violation to the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (art.18), The United States Constitution and The Constitution Of India.
 
B. <u>Respondent</u>


15. Other facts to show that the respondents are using OSHOWORLD.COM in good faith.
 
This contention was supported by a number of affidavits of OSHO Lovers across the globe, apart from the many newspaper reports and other sources that prove the veracity of Respondents contentions. Also supplied were the names and addresses of several hundred Osho Meditation centres worldwide.
Respondents, a non-profit, charitable Indian Corporation and its Administrator,
claim to have registered the domain name "oshoworld.com" for the good faith  
purpose of discussing the teachings of Osho and promoting the Osho World Galleria
in New Delhi, India.


== Complainant's Re-uptake ==
Respondent contends that "this is a case of a commercial
entity trying to exercise monopoly of the name Osho, a well-known Indian spiritual
mystic with hundreds of thousands of followers." Complainant further contends
that there are hundreds of independent mediation centers which study and spread
Osho’s teachings around the world and that the term Osho not only refers to
the individual, Osho, but also to the entire spiritual movement that believes
and follows his teachings.


In its reply to the above submission, OIF reiterated almost the same facts it had put in its original complaint and argued that:
Respondent contends that Osho was born in India in 1932
as Rajneesh Chandra Mohan. While serving as a Professor of Philosophy, he traveled
all over India giving lectures and conducting meditation camps and adopted the
name Bhagwan Shree Rajaneesh. In 1989, he adopted "Osho" as his "name" explaining
that the term derived from William James’ word "Oceania" which means "dissolving
into the ocean."


1. The domain name OSHOWORLD.com is confusingly similar to that of Complainants’ viz. OSHO.com, OSHO.net and OSHO.org.
Respondent contends that until Bhagwan Shree Rajaneesh adopted
the name Osho in 1989, Osho was never used by any of the parties to this dispute.  
Respondent further contends that from the time of his adoption of this name  
Osho in 1989, many institutions were established in India devoted to spreading
his teachings and ones that existed incorporated Osho’s new name. Respondent
further contends that Osho "left his body" (died) in 1990. Respondent further
contends that it is a non-profit, charitable organization registered under the
Societies Act in India which has continuously operated Osho Meditation Camps
to spread the teachings of Osho and has conducted mediations in Delhi since
its creation in 1996.


2. The complainants also said that the NAF is not a competent body to ascertain the legality of registered trademarks.
Respondent Atul Anad is Administrator of Respondent Osho Dhyan
Mandir and also a Trustee of the Osho World Foundation, an international, charitable
organization dedicated to promoting the teachings of Osho, which operates Osho
World, a galleria in New Delhi, India. The Galleria is a bookstore, meditation
center, performance studio and study area for all things related to Osho. It
opened in New Delhi on April 1, 2000.


3. Respondents have no legitimate interest OSHOWORLD.com
Respondents contend that Osho is not a valid trademark for
materials by or regarding Osho, that Complainant has committed fraud on the
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and has unclean hands, that the domain name
is not confusingly similar to any mark in which Complainant has an interest,
that Respondents have legitimate rights and interests in the domain name and
that the Respondents registered and are using "oshoworld.com" in good faith.


4. The complainants also raised the issue of a link to the website Meditate-Celebrate.com from the respondents’ website OSHOWORLD.com
 
<u>FINDINGS</u>


5. And, that the Complainants possess an oral trademark license and have been exercising the same.
 
Complainant has not met its burden to prove by a preponderance
of the relevant, admissible, evidence that Respondents’ domain name is identical
or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has
rights.


== Respondents' Rejoinder ==
Complainant has not met its burden to prove by a preponderance
of the relevant, admissible, evidence that Respondents have no rights or legitimate
interests in respect to the domain name.


In its response to the above, OSHO Dhyan Mandir i.e. the respondents contested the claims of Complainant and argued that:
Complainant has not met its burden to prove by a preponderance
of the relevant, admissible, evidence that Respondents’ domain name has been
registered and is being used in bad faith.


a. Marks can be cancelled when they become generic as in this case.
 
<u>DISCUSSION</u>


b. The term OSHO did not serve as a source indicator, it is generic and is widely understood to refer to OSHO and his teachings and spiritual movement.
     
Paragraph 4(a) of the ICANN Uniform Domain Name Dispute Policy ("Policy")
directs that Complainant must prove each of the following three elements
to support a claim that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred:


c. The respondents are known as OSHO World and have other rights to the word OSHO like the Oral Trademark License.
 
# the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar    to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights;
# Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain    name; and
 
(3) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.


d. Prima facie the complainant does not have any such license and assuming arguendo, that this trademark license did exist, the complainant has an affirmative duty to control the quality of the trademarked goods and services and that failure to fulfil this duty results in the forfeiture of the mark.
 
<u> </u>


e. Indian Law does not permit Complainants alleged Oral Trademark License
 
A. <u>Identical and/or Confusingly Similar</u>


f. WIPO Case Precedents as in Weber – Stephen Products Co. v. Armitage Hardware (WIPO Case No. D2000-0187, May 11, 2000) support the Respondents stand.
 


== Findings and Decision of NAF ==
 
Respondent’s domain name, "oshoworld.com" is obviously
<u>not</u> identical to either "OSHO" or "OSHO ACTIVE MEDITATIONS", the registered
and/or applied for trademarks or service marks of Complainant. However, under
Rule 4(a)(i), Complainant may prove that a Respondent’s domain name is "confusingly
similar" to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
In order to determine whether the domain name is "confusingly similar" to a
trademark or service mark, this Arbitrator must examine and compare the marks
in their entirety.


The complainant has not met its burden to prove by a preponderance of relevant, admissible evidence that:
However, Complainant must first prove that it has rights
in a trademark or service mark and then that Respondents’ domain name is confusingly
similar thereto.


1. Respondents’ domain name is confusingly similar or identical to a trademark or a service mark in which Complainant has a right.
This Arbitrator is troubled by Complainant’s identification
of itself in the Complaint as "Osho International Foundation" (hereinafter "OIF"),
the Swiss Corporation which owns three Federally- registered trademarks. Only
after Respondent claimed that Complainant was not OIF, did Complainant submit
an Affidavit stating that Complainant is in fact <u>not</u> the Swiss Corporation
listed as the owner of said marks, but rather a New York corporation, "America
Multi Media Corporation d/b/a ‘Osho International Foundation’", purportedly
"a wholly-owned subsidiary, agent, and agreement manager" for OIF. Complainant
appears to be a New York for profit entity. The evidence of Complainant’s authority
to act on behalf of OIF is insubstantial at best and not sufficient to prove
that Complainant has rights in any marks at issue here.


2. The respondents have no right or legitimate interests in respect to the domain name.
This record is also insufficient to establish that OSHO
is generic as claimed by Respondent, but it is more than sufficient to establish
that OSHO does not and cannot serve as a source indicator and/or distinguishing
moniker for Complainant and/or Complainant’s goods and services. Under these
circumstances, there is serious doubt at to whether Complainant "has rights"
in such a trademark or service mark because the purported mark does not and
cannot serve a trademark purpose.


3. The respondents’ domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
Complainant has thus not proven that the marks in question
are ones "in which the Complainant has rights."


On these grounds, Complainant's request that the domain name be transferred is denied.
There is no evidence that Bhagman Shree Rajneesh (Osho)
ever commercially exploited the name or mark OSHO during his natural life (while
still "in his body") or that he or his estate, if one was ever established,  
ever authorized either Party or any one else to utilize his name or mark. The
first use at all of "Osho" appears to have been by this spiritual leader himself
in 1989 and he died (or "left his body") in 1990. Though he has said, "It is
not my name, it is a healing sound", it appears that the parties, several national
trademark offices and many others have and continue to use same as a name and
a mark. The record also reflects that Osho himself had little regard for or
concern with intellectual property rights, including any related to the use
of his chosen name.


The Arbitrator M. Kelly Tillery Esquire in his decision observed that:
 


“As this Arbitrator imagines Osho himself might observe, one cannot possess trademark rights in a name/mark of such universal significance which cannot and clearly does not serve as a source indicator or distinguishing moniker for Complainant or Complaint’s goods or services.
As this Arbitrator imagines Osho himself might observe,  
one cannot possess trademark rights in a name/mark of such universal significance  
which cannot and clearly does not serve as a source indicator or distinguishing  
moniker for Complainant or Complaint’s goods or services.


He also said that, “To grant Complainant’s request for relief would be to permit virtual monopolization on the Internet by Complainant of any domain name which includes the name of a great spiritual teacher and leader. While making no judgment on the relative merits or validity of the world’s religions or spiritual movements or any leader thereof, this Arbitrator finds that permitting this would be as improper as doing the same with Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Zorastrianism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism, Shintoism or any of the several hundred other of the world’s religions and/or spiritual movements.
The overwhelming evidence indicates that it refers
to Osho, his teachings and his spiritual movement. Respondent has produced credible
evidence, not disputed by Complainant, that almost 500 meditation centers around
the world, <u>not</u> affiliated with Complainant, operate utilizing the "Osho"
name.


== See also ==
There is also no credible, admissible evidence of any
actual confusion between Complainant’s registered marks and/or applied for marks
and/or registered domain names and Respondent’s domain name registered on 9/29/99
and/or Respondent’s use of the name/mark "Osho Mediation Camps" in India since
1996 and/or Respondent's use of "OshoWorld" in connection with its galleria
in New Delhi, India.


: [http://www.oshofriendsinternational.com/documents/National_Arbiration_Forum_Decision.pdf National Arbitration Forum decision]
This Arbitrator does not and cannot invalidate the U.S.
and foreign mark registrations of OIF, a Swiss Corporation. This Arbitrator
holds only that for all of the above-stated reasons, Complainant has no rights
in any marks which are identical or confusingly similar to the domain name in
question.
 
 
 
 
 
 
B. <u>Rights or Legitimate Interests</u>
 
 
The evidence establishes that Respondents have real and
substantial "legitimate interests" in respect of the domain name in question.
Respondents have used the name since the date of incorporation on August 6,
1996 and has used OshoWorld at least since April 1, 2000.
 
Respondent has operated the OSHO MEDITATION CENTER (the
English translation of Respondent’s registered corporate name) since approximately
1996, long prior to its receipt on 6/12/00 of the Commencement Notification.
Such clearly satisfies the requirements of Rule 4(c)(i) and establishes in Respondent’s
"rights to and legitimate interests in" its domain name.
 
# Registration and Use in Bad Faith
Respondents’ domain name has <u>not</u> been registered
and is not being used in bad faith. Not one of the provisions of Rule 4(b) are
implicated by the evidence of record.
 
Respondent, ODM, a non-profit, charitable education and
spiritual entity, clearly registered and is using its domain name in good faith.
The only provision of the Rules that could possibly be implicated here is Rule
4(b)(iv). However, as set forth hereinabove, there is no credible evidence of
record to establish that Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract,
for commercial gain, Internet users to its Web Site or other on-line location,
by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark as to source,
sponsorship affiliation or endorsement of its Web Site or location of a product
or service on its Web Site or location. Rule 4(b)(iv). Respondents’ use appears
to be not for commercial gain and is not, as explained hereinabove, creating
a likelihood of confusion. On the contrary, Respondents’ use seems to be primarily,
if not solely, an authentic, legitimate exercise of freedom of expression and/or
religion protected by the United States Constitution, Amendment 1, the Constitution
of India, Article 25, Clause 1 and the United Nations Universal Declaration
of Human Rights, Article 18. This Arbitrator can conceive of few uses that would
more deserve to be called "in good faith."
 
To grant Complainant’s request for relief would be to permit
virtual monopolization on the Internet by Complainant of any domain name which
includes the name of a great spiritual teacher and leader. While making no judgment
on the relative merits or validity of the world’s religions or spiritual movements
or any leader thereof, this Arbitrator finds that permitting this would be as
improper as doing the same with Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Zorastrianism,
Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism, Shintoism or any of the several hundred
other of the world’s religions and/or spiritual movements. Neither The Lanham
Act nor the ICANN Policy and Rules contemplate or intend such a result.
 
 
 
 
<u>UNTIMELY SUBMISSIONS</u>
 
 
After the deadline for submissions, the National Arbitration
Forum received four (4) additional submissions from the parties, two each from
Complainant and Respondent: Reply to Respondent’s Answer, including six (6)
new Exhibits [received 7/13/00], (2) Petition to Strike Complainant’s Untimely
Reply [received 7/18/00], (3) Petition to Deny Respondent’s Petition to Strike
Complainant’s Reply [received 7/20/00] and (4) Respondent’s Sur-Response to
Complainant’s Untimely Reply [received 7/21/00].
 
This proceeding is governed by the ICANN Uniform Domain
Name Dispute Resolution Policy ("Policy") the ICANN Rule for Uniform Domain
Name Dispute Resolution ("Rules") and The National Arbitration Forum’s Supplemental
Rules to ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Rules ("Supplemental Rules").
 
Rule 2 entitled "Communications" provides in Subsection
(c) that "any communication to the Provider or the Panel shall be made by the
means and in the manner (including number of copies) stated in the Provider’s
Supplemental Rules." "Supplemental Rules" are defined in Rule 1 as ". . . the
rules adopted by the Provider administering a proceeding to supplement these
Rules . . . which" . . . shall not be inconsistent with the policy or these
Rules and shall cover topics as fees, word and page limits and guidelines, the
means for communicating with the Provider and the Panel, and the form of cover
sheets."
 
 
Pursuant to the Policy and the Rules, The National Arbitration
Forum promulgated Supplemental Rules, Number 7 of which provides as follows:
 
     
7. <u>Submission of other Written Statements and Documents;
No Amendment to the </u>
 
<u>Complaint</u>. A party may submit additional written
statements and documents to The
 
 
Forum and the opposing party(s) not later than five
(5) calendar days after the date the Response is submitted or the last
date the Response was due to be submitted to the Forum, whichever occurs
first. A fee of $150 and proof of the service of these submissions upon
the opposing party(s) shall accompany each such submission. No such
submission shall be considered by the Panel if not timely submitted,
or if the required fee is not paid and the proof or service does not
accompany the submission. The parties may not amend the Complaint or
the Response.
 
   
There is no question here that all four (4) of the aforementioned
submissions were "not timely submitted" Supplemental Rule 7. However, Rule 10
entitled "General Powers of the Panel" provides in Subsection (c) that, "The
Panel shall ensure that the administrative proceeding takes place with due expedition
and it may, at the request of a party or on its own motion, extend, in exceptional
cases, a period of time fixed by these Rules or by the Panel." Thus, this Arbitrator
may, "in exceptional cases" exercise discretion to consider one or more of these
untimely submissions.
 
In order to determine whether this is in fact "an exceptional
case" and whether such discretion should be exercised in favor of considering
any of such submissions, it is, of course, necessary to review all four untimely
submissions. Having done so, this Arbitrator finds that this is "an exceptional
case", at least in regard to the circumstances and the substance of all of the
untimely submissions. Thus, this Arbitrator will exercise discretion and will
consider all untimely submissions. Respondent’s Petition to Strike is denied
and Complainant’s Petition to Deny Respondent’s Petition is denied.
 
 
<u>DECISION</u>
 
 
'''Complainant’s request that the domain name be transferred is denied.'''
 
'''M. Kelly Tillery, Esquire July 28, 2000'''
 
|}
 
;see also
 
: Osho World's page about the [http://photos.oshoworld.com/ofi/legal-case/osho-world-website-case/ Osho World website case]
: [http://www.oshofriendsinternational.com/documents/National_Arbiration_Forum_Decision.pdf National Arbitration Forum decision] in PDF format


: [http://www3.telus.net/public/sarlo/Ysahajapolitix.htm Another religious freedom case which used the Osho World case as a precedent]: This case involved a group of exes who wished to present information about their former guru, Shri Mataji Nirmala Devi and were using a domain name very similar to the "mother org's" domain. Success of the case revolved around:  
: [http://www3.telus.net/public/sarlo/Ysahajapolitix.htm Another religious freedom case which used the Osho World case as a precedent]: This case involved a group of exes who wished to present information about their former guru, Shri Mataji Nirmala Devi and were using a domain name very similar to the "mother org's" domain. Success of the case revolved around:  
::a) their freedom to spread information
::a) their freedom to spread information
::b) not profiting commercially from this operation
::b) not profiting commercially from this operation

Revision as of 05:28, 20 July 2015

In July 2000 Osho Dhyan Mandir, an Osho Meditation centre based in New Delhi, India won the right to use the name OSHO for its website OshoWorld.com at the National Arbitration Forum, USA. The case is considered as a landmark event in the ongoing efforts to bring Osho into the public domain.

This is the transcript of the Forum's decision:


DECISION


Osho International Foundation v. Osho Dhyan Mandir and Atul Anand


Claim Number: FA0006000094990


PARTIES


Complainant is Osho International Foundation, New York, NY, USA ("Complainant"). Respondents are Osho Dhyan Mandir and Atul Anand, New Delhi, India ("Respondents).


REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME


The domain name at issue is "OSHOWORLD.COM", registered with Register.com.


PANELIST


M. Kelly Tillery, Esquire


PROCEDURAL HISTORY


Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum ("The Forum") electronically on 06/07/2000; The Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on 06/07/2000.


On 06/09/2000, Register.com confirmed by e-mail to The Forum that the domain name "OSHOWORLD.COM" is registered with Register.com and that Respondent Atul Anand of Respondent Osho Dhyan Mandir is the current registrant of the name.


On 06/12/2000, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of 07/05/2000 by which Respondents could file a Response to the Complaint, was transmitted to Respondents via email, post and fax, and to all entities and persons listed on Respondents’ registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts by email.


On 7/10/00, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a Single Member Panel, The Forum appointed M. Kelly Tillery, Esquire as Panelist.


RELIEF SOUGHT


Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondents to Complainant.


PARTIES' CONTENTIONS


A. Complainant


Complainant contends that Respondents’ registered domain name "oshoworld.com" is confusingly similar to Complainant’s registered marks for "OSHO" including but not limited to USPTO Registration No. 2,174,607 for "OSHO", Registration No. 2,180,173 for "OSHO", Registration No. 1,815,840 for "OSHO" and Pending Application Serial No. 75683097 for "OSHO" and Pending Application Serial No. 75834601 for "OSHO ACTIVE MEDITATIONS." Complainant also claims that it maintains three (3) registered domain names "osho.com", "osho.org" and "osho.net" all of which resolve into an active Web Site presumably operated by Complainant.


Complainant acknowledges that the Osho name/mark originates with the internationally known spiritual leader Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh, also known as Osho. Complainant claims to operate a worldwide publishing operation in the areas of meditation, body-mind-spirit philosophy and spirituality with respect to the teachings of the mystic Osho. Complainant also claims to operate the Osho Commune International in Poona, India.


Complainant claims that Respondent registered "oshoworld.com" in bad faith, that Respondent does not hold rights or legitimate interests in respect of its domain name and that Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its Web Site by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s trademarks and service marks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of Respondent’s Web Site.


B. Respondent


Respondents, a non-profit, charitable Indian Corporation and its Administrator, claim to have registered the domain name "oshoworld.com" for the good faith purpose of discussing the teachings of Osho and promoting the Osho World Galleria in New Delhi, India.


Respondent contends that "this is a case of a commercial entity trying to exercise monopoly of the name Osho, a well-known Indian spiritual mystic with hundreds of thousands of followers." Complainant further contends that there are hundreds of independent mediation centers which study and spread Osho’s teachings around the world and that the term Osho not only refers to the individual, Osho, but also to the entire spiritual movement that believes and follows his teachings.


Respondent contends that Osho was born in India in 1932 as Rajneesh Chandra Mohan. While serving as a Professor of Philosophy, he traveled all over India giving lectures and conducting meditation camps and adopted the name Bhagwan Shree Rajaneesh. In 1989, he adopted "Osho" as his "name" explaining that the term derived from William James’ word "Oceania" which means "dissolving into the ocean."


Respondent contends that until Bhagwan Shree Rajaneesh adopted the name Osho in 1989, Osho was never used by any of the parties to this dispute. Respondent further contends that from the time of his adoption of this name Osho in 1989, many institutions were established in India devoted to spreading his teachings and ones that existed incorporated Osho’s new name. Respondent further contends that Osho "left his body" (died) in 1990. Respondent further contends that it is a non-profit, charitable organization registered under the Societies Act in India which has continuously operated Osho Meditation Camps to spread the teachings of Osho and has conducted mediations in Delhi since its creation in 1996.


Respondent Atul Anad is Administrator of Respondent Osho Dhyan Mandir and also a Trustee of the Osho World Foundation, an international, charitable organization dedicated to promoting the teachings of Osho, which operates Osho World, a galleria in New Delhi, India. The Galleria is a bookstore, meditation center, performance studio and study area for all things related to Osho. It opened in New Delhi on April 1, 2000.


Respondents contend that Osho is not a valid trademark for materials by or regarding Osho, that Complainant has committed fraud on the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and has unclean hands, that the domain name is not confusingly similar to any mark in which Complainant has an interest, that Respondents have legitimate rights and interests in the domain name and that the Respondents registered and are using "oshoworld.com" in good faith.


FINDINGS


Complainant has not met its burden to prove by a preponderance of the relevant, admissible, evidence that Respondents’ domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights.


Complainant has not met its burden to prove by a preponderance of the relevant, admissible, evidence that Respondents have no rights or legitimate interests in respect to the domain name.


Complainant has not met its burden to prove by a preponderance of the relevant, admissible, evidence that Respondents’ domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.


DISCUSSION


Paragraph 4(a) of the ICANN Uniform Domain Name Dispute Policy ("Policy") directs that Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to support a claim that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred:


  1. the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights;
  2. Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and

(3) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.


 


A. Identical and/or Confusingly Similar


 


Respondent’s domain name, "oshoworld.com" is obviously not identical to either "OSHO" or "OSHO ACTIVE MEDITATIONS", the registered and/or applied for trademarks or service marks of Complainant. However, under Rule 4(a)(i), Complainant may prove that a Respondent’s domain name is "confusingly similar" to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights. In order to determine whether the domain name is "confusingly similar" to a trademark or service mark, this Arbitrator must examine and compare the marks in their entirety.


However, Complainant must first prove that it has rights in a trademark or service mark and then that Respondents’ domain name is confusingly similar thereto.


This Arbitrator is troubled by Complainant’s identification of itself in the Complaint as "Osho International Foundation" (hereinafter "OIF"), the Swiss Corporation which owns three Federally- registered trademarks. Only after Respondent claimed that Complainant was not OIF, did Complainant submit an Affidavit stating that Complainant is in fact not the Swiss Corporation listed as the owner of said marks, but rather a New York corporation, "America Multi Media Corporation d/b/a ‘Osho International Foundation’", purportedly "a wholly-owned subsidiary, agent, and agreement manager" for OIF. Complainant appears to be a New York for profit entity. The evidence of Complainant’s authority to act on behalf of OIF is insubstantial at best and not sufficient to prove that Complainant has rights in any marks at issue here.


This record is also insufficient to establish that OSHO is generic as claimed by Respondent, but it is more than sufficient to establish that OSHO does not and cannot serve as a source indicator and/or distinguishing moniker for Complainant and/or Complainant’s goods and services. Under these circumstances, there is serious doubt at to whether Complainant "has rights" in such a trademark or service mark because the purported mark does not and cannot serve a trademark purpose.


Complainant has thus not proven that the marks in question are ones "in which the Complainant has rights."


There is no evidence that Bhagman Shree Rajneesh (Osho) ever commercially exploited the name or mark OSHO during his natural life (while still "in his body") or that he or his estate, if one was ever established, ever authorized either Party or any one else to utilize his name or mark. The first use at all of "Osho" appears to have been by this spiritual leader himself in 1989 and he died (or "left his body") in 1990. Though he has said, "It is not my name, it is a healing sound", it appears that the parties, several national trademark offices and many others have and continue to use same as a name and a mark. The record also reflects that Osho himself had little regard for or concern with intellectual property rights, including any related to the use of his chosen name.


 


As this Arbitrator imagines Osho himself might observe, one cannot possess trademark rights in a name/mark of such universal significance which cannot and clearly does not serve as a source indicator or distinguishing moniker for Complainant or Complaint’s goods or services.


The overwhelming evidence indicates that it refers to Osho, his teachings and his spiritual movement. Respondent has produced credible evidence, not disputed by Complainant, that almost 500 meditation centers around the world, not affiliated with Complainant, operate utilizing the "Osho" name.


There is also no credible, admissible evidence of any actual confusion between Complainant’s registered marks and/or applied for marks and/or registered domain names and Respondent’s domain name registered on 9/29/99 and/or Respondent’s use of the name/mark "Osho Mediation Camps" in India since 1996 and/or Respondent's use of "OshoWorld" in connection with its galleria in New Delhi, India.


This Arbitrator does not and cannot invalidate the U.S. and foreign mark registrations of OIF, a Swiss Corporation. This Arbitrator holds only that for all of the above-stated reasons, Complainant has no rights in any marks which are identical or confusingly similar to the domain name in question.


 


 


B. Rights or Legitimate Interests


The evidence establishes that Respondents have real and substantial "legitimate interests" in respect of the domain name in question. Respondents have used the name since the date of incorporation on August 6, 1996 and has used OshoWorld at least since April 1, 2000.


Respondent has operated the OSHO MEDITATION CENTER (the English translation of Respondent’s registered corporate name) since approximately 1996, long prior to its receipt on 6/12/00 of the Commencement Notification. Such clearly satisfies the requirements of Rule 4(c)(i) and establishes in Respondent’s "rights to and legitimate interests in" its domain name.


  1. Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Respondents’ domain name has not been registered and is not being used in bad faith. Not one of the provisions of Rule 4(b) are implicated by the evidence of record.


Respondent, ODM, a non-profit, charitable education and spiritual entity, clearly registered and is using its domain name in good faith. The only provision of the Rules that could possibly be implicated here is Rule 4(b)(iv). However, as set forth hereinabove, there is no credible evidence of record to establish that Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its Web Site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark as to source, sponsorship affiliation or endorsement of its Web Site or location of a product or service on its Web Site or location. Rule 4(b)(iv). Respondents’ use appears to be not for commercial gain and is not, as explained hereinabove, creating a likelihood of confusion. On the contrary, Respondents’ use seems to be primarily, if not solely, an authentic, legitimate exercise of freedom of expression and/or religion protected by the United States Constitution, Amendment 1, the Constitution of India, Article 25, Clause 1 and the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 18. This Arbitrator can conceive of few uses that would more deserve to be called "in good faith."


To grant Complainant’s request for relief would be to permit virtual monopolization on the Internet by Complainant of any domain name which includes the name of a great spiritual teacher and leader. While making no judgment on the relative merits or validity of the world’s religions or spiritual movements or any leader thereof, this Arbitrator finds that permitting this would be as improper as doing the same with Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Zorastrianism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism, Shintoism or any of the several hundred other of the world’s religions and/or spiritual movements. Neither The Lanham Act nor the ICANN Policy and Rules contemplate or intend such a result.


 


UNTIMELY SUBMISSIONS


After the deadline for submissions, the National Arbitration Forum received four (4) additional submissions from the parties, two each from Complainant and Respondent: Reply to Respondent’s Answer, including six (6) new Exhibits [received 7/13/00], (2) Petition to Strike Complainant’s Untimely Reply [received 7/18/00], (3) Petition to Deny Respondent’s Petition to Strike Complainant’s Reply [received 7/20/00] and (4) Respondent’s Sur-Response to Complainant’s Untimely Reply [received 7/21/00].


This proceeding is governed by the ICANN Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy ("Policy") the ICANN Rule for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution ("Rules") and The National Arbitration Forum’s Supplemental Rules to ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Rules ("Supplemental Rules").


Rule 2 entitled "Communications" provides in Subsection (c) that "any communication to the Provider or the Panel shall be made by the means and in the manner (including number of copies) stated in the Provider’s Supplemental Rules." "Supplemental Rules" are defined in Rule 1 as ". . . the rules adopted by the Provider administering a proceeding to supplement these Rules . . . which" . . . shall not be inconsistent with the policy or these Rules and shall cover topics as fees, word and page limits and guidelines, the means for communicating with the Provider and the Panel, and the form of cover sheets."


Pursuant to the Policy and the Rules, The National Arbitration Forum promulgated Supplemental Rules, Number 7 of which provides as follows:


7. Submission of other Written Statements and Documents; No Amendment to the


Complaint. A party may submit additional written statements and documents to The


Forum and the opposing party(s) not later than five (5) calendar days after the date the Response is submitted or the last date the Response was due to be submitted to the Forum, whichever occurs first. A fee of $150 and proof of the service of these submissions upon the opposing party(s) shall accompany each such submission. No such submission shall be considered by the Panel if not timely submitted, or if the required fee is not paid and the proof or service does not accompany the submission. The parties may not amend the Complaint or the Response.


There is no question here that all four (4) of the aforementioned submissions were "not timely submitted" Supplemental Rule 7. However, Rule 10 entitled "General Powers of the Panel" provides in Subsection (c) that, "The Panel shall ensure that the administrative proceeding takes place with due expedition and it may, at the request of a party or on its own motion, extend, in exceptional cases, a period of time fixed by these Rules or by the Panel." Thus, this Arbitrator may, "in exceptional cases" exercise discretion to consider one or more of these untimely submissions.


In order to determine whether this is in fact "an exceptional case" and whether such discretion should be exercised in favor of considering any of such submissions, it is, of course, necessary to review all four untimely submissions. Having done so, this Arbitrator finds that this is "an exceptional case", at least in regard to the circumstances and the substance of all of the untimely submissions. Thus, this Arbitrator will exercise discretion and will consider all untimely submissions. Respondent’s Petition to Strike is denied and Complainant’s Petition to Deny Respondent’s Petition is denied.


DECISION


Complainant’s request that the domain name be transferred is denied.


M. Kelly Tillery, Esquire July 28, 2000

see also
Osho World's page about the Osho World website case
National Arbitration Forum decision in PDF format
Another religious freedom case which used the Osho World case as a precedent: This case involved a group of exes who wished to present information about their former guru, Shri Mataji Nirmala Devi and were using a domain name very similar to the "mother org's" domain. Success of the case revolved around:
a) their freedom to spread information
b) not profiting commercially from this operation