Similarity With 'Excel' Alone Not Bad Faith; Delhi HC Sets Aside Award Transferring 'exceltotally.in' To Microsoft

The Delhi High Court has set aside an arbitral award that directed the transfer of the domain name "exceltotally.in" to Microsoft Corporation. The Court held that confusing similarity with Microsoft's "EXCEL" trademark, by itself, was not enough to establish bad faith under the .IN Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (INDRP).

Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar observed that the arbitrator had not independently examined whether the registrants intentionally sought to deceive users, exploit Microsoft's goodwill, derive an unfair commercial benefit, or otherwise acted in bad faith before ordering transfer of the domain name.

“Mere incorporation of a prior trademark within a domain name, absent surrounding circumstances evidencing intentional deception, diversion, or dishonest commercial exploitation, would not by itself satisfy the threshold contemplated under Clause 4(c) of the INDRP.”

At the centre of the dispute was the domain name "exceltotally.in".  Pathan Imrankhan Zafarullakhan used it for software designed to facilitate the transfer of data between Microsoft Excel and Tally accounting software.

The registrants maintained that they had adopted the expression "EXCELTOTALLY" in 2010 in a descriptive and functional sense. According to them, the name was intended to indicate compatibility and interoperability between the two software products.

Microsoft claimed that the domain name incorporated its well-known "EXCEL" trademark and was likely to create an association with its products.

The dispute escalated after Microsoft issued a cease-and-desist notice on July 18, 2025. The registrants later withdrew their trademark application for "EXCELTOTALLY" and added a disclaimer stating that they were neither affiliated with nor endorsed by Microsoft.

Microsoft then invoked the .IN Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy before the National Internet Exchange of India (NIXI), seeking transfer of the domain name.

On March 2, 2026, a sole arbitrator ruled in Microsoft's favour and directed transfer of "exceltotally.in". The arbitrator found the domain name to be confusingly similar to Microsoft's trademark and held that it had been registered and used in bad faith.

Challenging the award before the High Court, the registrants argued that the arbitrator had effectively treated confusing similarity and bad faith as the same thing. They also contended that the award lacked the independent inquiry required before a finding of bad faith could be reached.

The Court was not persuaded by their challenge on the ground of lack of notice. It held that notices had been sent to the contact details and email addresses linked to the domain registration. A registrant, the Court observed, cannot avoid the consequences of valid service merely by claiming that the relevant email account was not being regularly monitored.

On the merits, the Court examined the structure of the INDRP. It held that the three requirements under Clause 4, namely confusing similarity, absence of legitimate rights or interests, and bad faith, are cumulative. Each requirement must be independently established before relief can be granted.

“A plain reading of Clause 4 of the INDRP makes it abundantly clear that all the three ingredients as set out in Clause 4 would require to be satisfied in order for the complaint to be maintainable.”, it noted.

The Court noted that domain name disputes often involve descriptive terms, compatibility references, interoperability claims, or functional descriptions. Such use may create some degree of similarity without necessarily revealing dishonest intent.

The Court further held that Clause 7 requires a separate examination of whether a registrant intentionally attempted to attract internet users by creating confusion.

The court held that Clause 7 requires a separate examination of whether a registrant intentionally attempted to attract internet users by creating confusion. It also requires an assessment of whether the registrant sought to exploit another's goodwill or acted with a dishonest commercial objective.

“The architecture of Clause 7 thus makes it abundantly clear that bad faith under the INDRP framework is rooted in demonstrable intention, deliberate deception, and conscious exploitation of another's commercial goodwill.”, the court noted.

Examining the award, the Court found that the arbitrator had largely relied on Microsoft's trademark rights and the likelihood of confusion arising from the use of the word "EXCEL" in the domain name.

What the award lacked, the Court held, was an independent examination of whether the registrants had intentionally diverted users, exploited Microsoft's goodwill, obtained an unfair commercial advantage, or deliberately disrupted Microsoft's business in the manner contemplated by the INDRP.

The Court cautioned that equating similarity with bad faith would erase the distinction between the two concepts. Such an approach would also make the separate requirement of bad faith redundant.

“Consequently, the Impugned Arbitral Award fails to demonstrate substantive compliance with the mandatory jurisdictional requirements governing adjudication under the INDRP framework. The policy mandates not merely a finding of similarity, but an independent and reasoned determination that the registrant's conduct satisfies the threshold of bad faith as specifically contemplated under Clause 7 of the INDRP.”

Holding that the award did not satisfy the mandatory requirements of the INDRP framework and lacked the independent examination necessary for a finding of bad faith, the Court set aside the direction transferring "exceltotally.in" to Microsoft.

For Petitioners (Mr. Pathan Imrankhan Zafarullakhan & Anr.): Advocates Anju Agrawal, Manisha Singh, Abhai Pandey, Khushi Chauhan and Vidhi Gupta.

For Respondent (Microsoft Corporation): Advocates Ashim Sood, Pooja Dodd, Anuraj Tirthankar, Senu Nizar, Karan and Kartikeya.