Wrong Application Of Law Not Leading To Perversity; Arbitral Award Cannot Be Set Aside: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has ruled that merely because the arbitrator had wrongly applied the.IN Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy, while adjudication a dispute over domain names under the said Policy, the award cannot be set aside in the absence of perversity. The petitioner, Bright Simons, submitted before the High Court that the Arbitrator’s finding that the respondent had trade mark rights in ‘SPROXIL’ and that the petitioner was using the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith, was not supported by any material on record. “This court is conscious that it is not sitting in appeal over the arbitral award and hence, do not find any merit on the argument of the Petitioner that the conclusion reached by the learned arbitrator to the effect that the Disputed Domain Name registered by the Petitioner is identical is perverse or contrary to the fundamental policy of Indian Law. While dealing with the argument that the Arbitrator had wrongly applied Paragraph 6 of the INDRP Policy, which deems certain circumstances as evidence of bad faith in registration and use of domain name, the Court said: “ I am also unable to agree with the submission of the Petitioner that the arbitrator has wrongly applied paragraph 6 of the INDRP Policy as even if the submission of the Petitioner is accepted, then merely because there has been wrong application of law not leading to perversity cannot lead to the setting aside of the arbitral award.” Holding that the petitioner had failed to prove that the Arbitrator’s finding regarding similarity of the disputed domain name was contrary to the public policy of India, the Court dismissed the petition.