Exhibit 4.pdf

PETITION submitted by Tata Communications (America) Inc. and Tata Communications Services (America) In

Exhibit 4

2010-09-25

This document pretains to ITC-214-20100907-00357 for International Global Resale Authority on a International Telecommunications filing.

IBFS_ITC2142010090700357_841675

Exhibit # 4 to the Petition to Deny the Application filed by Tata Telecom INC September 25, 2010

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICTCOURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE 9 TORONTO ASIA TELE ACCESS TELECOM ) No. INC., now known as TATA TELECOM INC., a ) 10 company organized under the laws of Canada, ) COMPLAINT and MANMOHAN SINGH THAMBER, a ) 11 natural person residing in Canada, ) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ) 12 Plaintiffs, ) ) 13 vs. ) ) 14 TATA SONS LIMITED, a company organized ) under the laws of India, ) 15 ) Defendants. ) 16 Plaintiffs Toronto Asia Tele Access Telecom Inc., now known as TATA Telecom Inc. 17 (“TATA Telecom”), and Manmohan Singh Thamber (“Mr. Singh”), by and through the 18 undersigned attorneys, allege for their Complaint against Tata Sons Limited (“Tata Sons”) as 19 follows: 20 PARTIES 21 1. Plaintiff TATA Telecom is a company organized under the laws of Canada. 22 TATA Telecom’s principal place of business is in Toronto, Canada. 23 2. Plaintiff Singh is a natural person residing in Toronto, Canada. Mr. Singh is chief 24 executive officer and founder of TATA Telecom. 25 26 COMPLAINT -- 1 GRAHAM & DUNN PC Pier 70, 2801 Alaskan Way ~ Suite 300 Seattle, Washington 98121-1128 (206) 624-8300/Fax: (206) 340-9599 No. m41121-1272208.doc

1 3. Tata Sons is a company organized under the laws of India. Tata Sons’ principal 2 place of business is in Mumbai, India. 3 JURISDICTION/VENUE 4 4. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 15 U.S.C. § 1114(2)(D)(v); 5 28 U.S.C. § 1338(a); 28 U.S.C. § 2201(a); and 28 U.S.C. § 1331. 6 5. Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and (d). Tata Sons 7 regularly conducts business in this District, has substantial contacts with and/or may be found in 8 this District, and agreed to submit to the jurisdiction of this Court. 9 FACTS 10 6. Mr. Singh founded TATA Telecom in 2002. TATA Telecom provides 11 telecommunication services, including wholesale and retail long distance services, international 12 toll free numbers, prepaid calling cards, callshop solutions, phone portal services, and 13 CallbySMS services. 14 7. On May 2, 2003, Mr. Singh, on behalf of TATA Telecom, registered the domain 15 name TATA-Telecom.com through eNom, Inc. (“eNom”), a domain name registrar accredited by 16 the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (“ICANN”). Mr. Singh, on behalf of 17 TATA Telecom, has continuously maintained their registration through the present. 18 8. On May 8, 2006, TATA Telecom was incorporated as “Toronto Asia Tele Access 19 Telecom Inc.” in Canada. 20 9. On April 15, 2008, TATA Telecom registered “TATA Telecom Inc.” as a trade 21 name in Canada. 22 10. TATA Telecom and Mr. Singh use their TATA-Telecom.com domain name in 23 connection with TATA Telecom’s Web site, www.TATA-Telecom.com. TATA Telecom’s Web 24 site provides information about the telecommunications services that TATA Telecom provides. 25 26 COMPLAINT -- 2 GRAHAM & DUNN PC Pier 70, 2801 Alaskan Way ~ Suite 300 Seattle, Washington 98121-1128 (206) 624-8300/Fax: (206) 340-9599 No. m41121-1272208.doc

1 11. When TATA Telecom and Mr. Singh registered the TATA-Telecom.com domain 2 name with eNom, they consented to have disputes relating to their domain name be decided 3 according to the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (“UDRP”). 4 12. On May 21, 2009, Tata Sons filed a UDRP complaint against TATA Telecom and 5 Mr. Sing with the World Intellectual Property Organization (“WIPO”), an approved arbitration 6 service provider under the UDRP. 7 13. On September 1, 2009, the WIPO arbitration panel decided in favor of Tata Sons 8 and ordered that TATA-Telecom.com be transferred to Tata Sons. 9 14. On September 15, 2009, WIPO transmitted notice of its decision to eNom. At the 10 same time, WIPO also notified TATA Telecom, Mr. Singh, Tata Sons, and eNom that: 11 Pursuant to Paragraph 4(k) of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy, the Registrar identified below [eNom] shall proceed to implement the 12 above decision on the tenth business day (as observed in the location of that Registrar’s principal office) after receiving this notification. The concerned 13 Registrar will not implement the decision if, before the 10-day waiting period has expired, the Respondent submits official documentation (such as a copy of a 14 complaint, file-stamped by the clerk of the court) to the Registrar demonstrating that it has commenced a legal proceeding against the Complainant in a jurisdiction 15 to which the Complainant has submitted under Paragraph 3(b)(xiii) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy…. 16 15. Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1114(2)(D)(v): 17 A domain name registrant whose domain name has been suspended, disabled, or 18 transferred [as a result of an administrative proceeding regarding the domain name] may, upon notice to the mark owner, file a civil action to establish that the 19 registration or use of the domain name by such registration is not unlawful under this Act. The court may grant injunctive relief to the domain name registrant, 20 including the reactivation of the domain name or transfer of the domain name to the domain name registrant. 21 16. TATA Telecom and Mr. Singh have commenced this action to establish that their 22 registration and/or use of TATA-Telecom.com is not unlawful under the Lanham Act, and that 23 TATA Telecom and Mr. Singh are not required to transfer TATA-Telecom.com to Tata Sons. 24 17. In particular, TATA Telecom was the first to register and use its TATA- 25 Telecom.com domain name, and was the first to adopt and use TATA TELECOM as a trademark 26 COMPLAINT -- 3 GRAHAM & DUNN PC Pier 70, 2801 Alaskan Way ~ Suite 300 Seattle, Washington 98121-1128 (206) 624-8300/Fax: (206) 340-9599 No. m41121-1272208.doc

1 in connection with telecommunications services in the United States, Canada, Australia, New 2 Zealand, and the European Union. 3 18. Tata Sons did not begin offering telecommunications services until after TATA 4 Telecom first registered and used TATA-Telecom.com, and after TATA Telecom adopted and 5 began to use TATA TELECOM as a trademark in connection with telecommunications services. 6 19. On information and belief, Tata Sons has not yet acquired any trademark rights in 7 the United States in connection with telecommunications services. If and when Tata Sons does 8 so, such rights will be junior to TATA Telecom’s senior rights in TATA TELECOM as a 9 trademark in connection with telecommunications services. 10 CAUSE OF ACTION 11 Declaratory Judgment that Plaintiffs’ Registration of TATA-Telecom.com Is Not Unlawful Under the Lanham Act 12 20. Plaintiff re-states the allegations set forth above. 13 21. The facts stated herein state a “case of actual controversy” as that phrase is used in 14 28 U.S.C. § 2201(a). 15 22. Among other things, TATA Telecom, Mr. Singh, and Tata Sons dispute whether 16 TATA Telecom and Mr. Singh should be required to transfer TATA-Telecom.com to Tata Sons 17 under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1151, et seq. 18 23. TATA Telecom and Mr. Singh did not have a bad faith intent to profit from any 19 trademark in which Tata Sons have rights, as provided in 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d)(1)(A)(i). 20 24. TATA Telecom and Mr. Singh did not register, traffic in, or use a domain name 21 that is identical or confusingly similar to, or dilutive of, any trademark owned by Tata Sons that 22 was distinctive or famous at the time TATA Telecom and Mr. Singh registered TATA- 23 Telecom.com, as provided in 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d)(1)(A)(ii). 24 25 26 COMPLAINT -- 4 GRAHAM & DUNN PC Pier 70, 2801 Alaskan Way ~ Suite 300 Seattle, Washington 98121-1128 (206) 624-8300/Fax: (206) 340-9599 No. m41121-1272208.doc

1 25. TATA Telecom and Mr. Singh had reasonable grounds to believe that their 2 registration and use of TATA-Telecom.com was fair use or otherwise lawful, as provided in 15 3 U.S.C. § 1125(d)(1)(B)(ii). 4 26. For these reasons, TATA Telecom’s and Mr. Singh’s registration of TATA- 5 Telecom.com does not violate the Lanham Act. Consequently, TATA Telecom and Mr. Singh 6 should not be required to transfer TATA-Telecom.com to Tata Sons. 7 27. TATA Telecom and Mr. Singh have given notice to Tata Sons of their intent to 8 file this action to establish that their registration and use of TATA-Telecom.com was and is not 9 unlawful. 10 RELIEF REQUESTED 11 WHEREFORE, TATA Telecom and Mr. Singh pray for relief as follows: 12 1. For a declaration that: 13 a. TATA Telecom and Mr. Singh did not have a bad faith intent to profit 14 from any trademark in which Tata Sons has rights; 15 b. TATA Telecom and Mr. Singh did not register, traffic in, or use a domain 16 name that is identical or confusingly similar to, or dilutive of, any trademark owned by Tata Sons 17 that was distinctive or famous at the time TATA Telecom and Mr. Singh registered TATA- 18 Telecom.com; 19 c. TATA Telecom and Mr. Singh had reasonable grounds to believe that 20 their registration and use of TATA-Telecom.com was fair use or otherwise lawful; 21 d. TATA Telecom’s and Mr. Singh’s registration of TATA-Telecom.com does 22 not violate the Lanham Act; and 23 e. TATA Telecom and Mr. Singh are not be required to transfer TATA- 24 Telecom.com to Tata Sons; 25 2. For an order prohibiting Tata Sons from taking any further action with respect to 26 the transfer of the TATA-Telecom.com domain name; COMPLAINT -- 5 GRAHAM & DUNN PC Pier 70, 2801 Alaskan Way ~ Suite 300 Seattle, Washington 98121-1128 (206) 624-8300/Fax: (206) 340-9599 No. m41121-1272208.doc

1 3. For an award of attorney’s fees and costs; and 2 4. For such other and further relief that the Court deems just and proper. 3 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 4 TATA Telecom and Mr. Singh respectfully request a trial by jury of all issues triable by a 5 jury. 6 DATED this 24th day of September, 2009. 7 GRAHAM & DUNN PC 8 9 By /s/ Michael G. Atkins Michael G. Atkins 10 WSBA# 26026 Email: matkins@grahamdunn.com 11 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 COMPLAINT -- 6 GRAHAM & DUNN PC Pier 70, 2801 Alaskan Way ~ Suite 300 Seattle, Washington 98121-1128 (206) 624-8300/Fax: (206) 340-9599 No. m41121-1272208.doc


Document Created: 2010-09-25 15:04:51
Document Modified: 2010-09-25 15:04:51
© 2024 FCC.report
This site is not affiliated with or endorsed by the FCC