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
The North Face Apparel CorpvsController of Patents and Designs
The North Face Apparel Corp challenged the Controller of Patents' refusal of its patent application (No. 202147026139) titled 'Systems and Methods for End-to-End Article Management' before the Madras High Court under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970. The Controller had rejected the application citing lack of inventive step over prior art documents D21-D24. The Court held that the Controller erred by dissecting the claims into isolated elements rather than assessing the invention as a whole, and overlooked the use of spectrophotometer and invisible markers for tracking the manufacturing process, which were not disclosed in the cited prior art. The appeal was allowed and the Controller was directed to grant the patent.
Aventose Energy Private LimitedvsThe Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs, Patent Office Chennai
Aventose Energy Private Limited appealed under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970 against the refusal of its patent application (No. 202141019671) for a 'System and Method for Operating Automobiles with an Electric Drivetrain' featuring safe mode activation upon fault detection. The Madras High Court found that the Assistant Controller had contradicted the First Examination Report (which accepted novelty) by subsequently holding the invention lacked novelty without giving the applicant an opportunity to be heard. The court further held that the Controller improperly conflated novelty with inventive step under Section 2(1)(ja) and failed to properly analyze the claims against prior art documents D1–D4.
Apex Laboratories Pvt LtdvsElder Lifescience and Ambico Ayurvedic Health Care
Apex Laboratories Pvt Ltd, the prior adopter and registered proprietor of the trademark ZINCOVIT (TM No. 487453 in Class 5) since 1988, sought interim injunction against Elder Lifescience and Ambico Ayurvedic Health Care for using the deceptively similar mark NEO ZINCOVIT. The applicant also claimed copyright infringement of its registered artistic works (A-108878/2014) covering colour scheme, get-up, and layout. The Madras High Court was satisfied that the respondents were attempting to piggyback on the applicant's goodwill and granted interim injunctions on all three applications covering trademark infringement, copyright infringement, and passing off.
Radico Khaitan LimitedvsPicadilly Agro Industries Limited
This Special Leave Petition arose from a judgment dated 29-05-2026 in CS No. 8/2025 passed by the District Judge, Karnal, Haryana, concerning a trademark dispute over the marks 'Cashmere' and 'Kashmyr' used in relation to beer and vodka. The Supreme Court noted that a First Appeal (FAO-COM-11-2026) was already pending before the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, listed for 28.10.2026. The Court disposed of the SLP without adjudicating it on merits, requesting the High Court to pass an appropriate order regarding the ad interim injunction on the scheduled date.
Maharaja Agrasen Technical Educational Society (Regd.)vsMaharaja Agrasen Himalayan Garhwal University
The plaintiff, Maharaja Agrasen Technical Educational Society, filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendant, Maharaja Agrasen Himalayan Garhwal University, alleging infringement and passing off regarding the use of the words 'Maharaja Agrasen' in the defendant's name. The Delhi High Court had previously granted a restraint order on 10.07.2026. During the pendency of the suit, the parties arrived at a settlement dated 14.09.2026, under which the defendant agreed to change its name through a statutory amendment while being permitted limited transitional use of its existing name. The court recorded the settlement, modified the interim order accordingly, and listed the matter for compliance reporting on 13.07.2027.
Varahi Diamonds And Finance LimitedvsSahil Vinay Mehra Trading As Mehra Sons Jewellers & Anr.
This is a commercial suit filed by Varahi Diamonds And Finance Limited against Sahil Vinay Mehra Trading As Mehra Sons Jewellers & Anr. before the Delhi High Court. The order is primarily procedural, dealing with the registration of the plaint, issuance of summons, directions for filing pleadings, and an interim injunction application. The matter was referred to mediation, with parties directed to appear before the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre.
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.