Short Summary
The Delhi High Court set aside an arbitral award that directed the transfer of the domain name 'www.exceltotally.in' from the petitioners to Microsoft Corporation. The court found that the arbitral award lacked independent evaluative analysis establishing intentional deception or bad faith. The petitioners had been using the domain name since 2010 for their software solutions and applications facilitating data transfer between Microsoft Excel and Tally accounting software.
Detailed Summary
[Cites
22
, Cited by
0
]
Delhi High Court
Mr Pathan Imrankhan Zafarullakhan & Anr vs Microsoft Corporation on 29 May, 2026
$~
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment reserved on: 13.05.2026
Judgment pronounced on: 29.05.2026
+ O.M.P. (COMM) 223/2026, I.A. 12470/2026 (Stay) & I.A.
12471/2026 (Ex.)
MR PATHAN IMRANKHAN ZAFARULLAKHAN & ANR.
.....Petitioners
Through: Ms. Anju Agrawal, Ms.
Manisha Singh, Mr. Abhai
Pandey, Ms. Khushi Chauhan
and Ms. Vidhi Gupta,
Advocates.
versus
MICROSOFT CORPORATION .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Ashim Sood, Ms. Pooja
Dodd, Mr. Anuraj Tirthankar,
Ms. Senu Nizar, Mr. Karan and
Mr. Kartikeya, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN
SHANKAR
JUDGMENT
HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J.
1. The present Petition has been instituted under Section 34 of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 19961, seeking the setting aside of
the Arbitral Award dated 02.03.20262, rendered by the learned Sole
Arbitrator in INDRP Case No. 2091 under the .IN Domain Name
Dispute Resolution Policy3.
1
A&C Act
2
Arbitral Award
3
INDRP
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
O.M.P. (COMM) 223/2026 Page 1 of 40
BHATIA
Signing Date:30.05.2026
15:09:27
2. By way of the Impugned Arbitral Award, the learned Arbitrator
allowed the complaint preferred by the Respondent under the INDRP
framework and directed transfer of the domain name
"www.exceltotally.in"4 from the Petitioners in favour of the
Respondent herein.
BRIEF FACTS:
3. Petitioner No.1 is engaged in the business of providing software
solutions and applications facilitating the transfer of data between
Microsoft Excel and Tally accounting software and the Subject
Domain Name has been adopted and used in connection with such
activities since the year 2010.
4. According to the Petitioners, the expression
"EXCELTOTALLY" was adopted in a descriptive and functional
sense merely to indicate compatibility and interoperability of the
software product with Microsoft Excel and Tally software.
5. The Respondent, on the other hand, claims to be the proprietor
of the globally reputed and well-known trademark "EXCEL",
associated with its spreadsheet software and allied technological
products and services.
6. According to the Respondent herein, the Petitioners had
adopted the dominant por
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Delhi High Court. Understanding the court's reasoning in Mr Pathan Imrankhan Zafarullakhan & Anr vs Microsoft Corporation is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
F Hoffman La Rochee Ltd & AnrvsCipla Ltd.
This appeal involved disputes between Roche and Cipla regarding Patent No. 196774, which covered a cancer treatment drug ('Polymer A'). While Cipla had raised counterclaims seeking revocation based on non-disclosure (Section 8), the Division Bench addressed whether to stay the IPAB proceedings pending the outcome of cross-appeals in the High Court.
Yamaha Hatsudoki Kabushiki KaishavsMr. Devender Kumar And Anr.
The Calcutta High Court allowed an appeal filed by Yamaha Hatsudoki Kabushiki Kaisha against a rejection of its trademark application for 'R3' in Class 12. The court found that the original rejection failed to consider key arguments, including the appellant's claim that R3 was an associated mark and their existing portfolio of related marks (like YZF-R3). Consequently, the High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the Controller for a fresh hearing.
Universitat UlmvsAssistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Universitat Ulm appealed the rejection of its patent application (No. 645/CHENP/2011) concerning Opioids for Resistant Cancer Treatment. The High Court found the original order cryptic, noting that it failed to discuss prior arts or address specific submissions made by the appellant regarding synergistic effects and foreign patents. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the matter was remanded for fresh scrutiny.
Shaperon Inc.vsThe Controller General Of Patents And Designs, Mumbai and Anr.
Shaperon Inc. appealed an order passed by the Deputy Controller of Patents & Designs, Kolkata, challenging its validity. The appellant contended that the Deputy Controller failed to consider crucial expert evidence provided by Dr. Seung-yong Seong regarding the invention's technical advancement and advantages. The High Court found the impugned order unsustainable due to this procedural lapse.
M/s. Goldmedal Electricals Pvt. Ltd.vsSaurabh Kumar Agarwal & Anr. (Shyam Singh)
M/s. Goldmedal Electricals Pvt. Ltd. filed a commercial suit against Saurabh Kumar Agarwal and Shyam Singh seeking a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from infringing or passing off its registered 'GOLDMEDAL' trademarks and copyrights. The plaintiff applied for summary judgment under Order XIII-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The court allowed the application, granted a decree of permanent injunction against Defendant No. 1, awarded damages of Rs. 3,00,000/- and legal fees of Rs. 1,00,000/-, and dismissed the suit against Defendant No. 2 as not pressed.
Dealing with a patent challenge?
Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.
Disclaimer: This page contains an automated summary based on publicly available judicial records. The content is generated for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always verify details against the original source judgment before relying on this information for any legal purpose. If you believe any information is inaccurate, please contact us.