JUDGMENT Vibhu Bakhru, J. (Oral). - The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter 'the A&C Act') impugning an arbitral award dated 23.07.2021 (hereinafter 'the impugned award') delivered by the Arbitral Tribunal comprising of a learned Sole Arbitrator. 2. In the year 2004, the petitioner adopted and coined the Trademark 2 DEGE'. 3. On 23.08.2004, the petitioner entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (hereafter 'MoU') with the Defence Research and Development Organisation, Ministry of Defence, Government of India(hereafter 'DRDO') for "Technology Transfer Agreement for 2-DEOXY-D-GLUCOSE (2-DG)". In terms of the said MoU, DRDO granted a non-exclusive revocable license to the petitioner to utilize the "Technology" developed by it for manufacturing and selling the said product in India and abroad. It is averred in the petition that the petitioner, working in collaboration with the DRDO, developed the first Indian origin anti-covid medicine under the brand 'D2G'. 4. Thereafter, on 18.11.2004, the petitioner applied for registration of the Trademark 2DEGE' in Class 5 (Medicinal and Pharmaceutical Preparations and Substances) under the number 1320971 and the same was duly registered. Further, on 03.02.2015, the petitioner procured another registration of the mark 2DEGE' in Class 5 (Medicinal and Pharmaceutical Preparations and Substances) under the number 2897647. 5. On 01.05.2021, the license for manufacturing of 2DG' medicines was granted to the petitioner. 6. On 08.05.2021, respondent no.l obtained the registration of 'http://www.2dg.in' (hereafter 'the impugned domain name'). 7. On 16.05.2021, the petitioner applied for registration of the mark 2DG' in Class 5 under the number 4974704. Subsequently, the device mark applications for registration of the mark 2DG' were also filed by the petitioner. 8. It is averred in the petition that in the first week of June, 2021, the petitioner came across the impugned domain name of the respondent. 9. Admittedly, disputes arose between the parties with respect to the impugned domain name. In view of the disputes, the petitioner filed a complaint with National Internet Exchange of India (hereafter 'respondent no. 2') and requested that an Administrative Panel be appointed and the impugned domain name be transferred to it in accordance with the. IN Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy Rules of Procedure (hereafter 'INDRP'). 10. Pursuant to the petitioner's request, an Arbitral Tribunal was constituted. Respondent no. 2') and requested that an Administrative Panel be appointed and the impugned domain name be transferred to it in accordance with the. IN Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy Rules of Procedure (hereafter 'INDRP'). 10. Pursuant to the petitioner's request, an Arbitral Tribunal was constituted. Respondent no. 1 did not participate in the proceedings before the Arbitral Tribunal and was not represented before the Arbitral Tribunal. The arbitral proceedings culminated in the Arbitral Tribunal rendering the impugned award exparte. 11. By the impugned award, the Arbitral Tribunal rejected the claim of the petitioner and declined its claim for transfer of the impugned domain name, in its favour. The Arbitral Tribunal held that the petitioner had two types of trademarks mentioned in the complaint and annexures and thus, it could not restrain respondent no.l from using 2DG' as a domain name. The Arbitral Tribunal held that the petitioner was the owner of the Trademark 2DEGE' and considering that the domains were being used by internet users, who were not illiterate, the two Trademarks, that are, 2DG' and 2DEGE' could easily be differentiated. 12. Aggrieved by the impugned award, the petitioner has filed the present petition. Reasons and Conclusion 13. At the outset, it is relevant to refer to refer to Sections 4 and Section 6 of the INDRP. The same are set out below: - "4. Class of Disputes Any Person who considers that a registered domain name conflicts with his/her legitimate rights or interests may file a Complaint to the. IN Registry on the following premises: (a) the Registrant's domain name is identical and/or confusingly similar to a Name, Trademark or Service Mark etc. in which the Complainant has rights; and (b) the Registrant has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and (c) the Registrant's domain name has been registered or is being used either in bad faith or for illegal/unlawful purpose. *** *** *** 6. in which the Complainant has rights; and (b) the Registrant has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and (c) the Registrant's domain name has been registered or is being used either in bad faith or for illegal/unlawful purpose. *** *** *** 6. Registrant's Rights and Legitimate Interests in the Domain Name Any of the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Arbitrator to be proved based on its evaluation of all evidences presented before him, shall demonstrate the Registrant's rights to or legitimate interests in the domain name for the purposes of Clause 4(b): (a) before any notice to the Registrant of the dispute, the Registrant's use of, or demonstrable preparations to use the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; (b) the Registrant (as an individual, business, or other organization) has been commonly known by the domain name, even if the Registrant has acquired no Trademark or Service Mark rights; or (c) the Registrant is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without the intention of commercial gain by." 14. In terms of Section 4 of the INDRP, the petitioner was entitled to raise a dispute on the ground that the impugned domain name, registered in favour of respondent no.l, was in conflict with its legitimate rights and interests. The petitioner had founded its complaint on the basis that the impugned domain name was identical and/or confusingly similar to its Trademark and respondent no.l had no legitimate interest in respect of the impugned domain name, in terms of Section 6 of the INDRP. 15. However, respondent no.l had not participated in the arbitral proceedings. He had not produced any material to show any legitimate interest in the impugned domain name. There was also no material on record to suggest that respondent no.l was carrying on any legitimate business connected with the impugned domain name. 16. In view of the above, the limited scope of controversy required to be addressed by the Arbitral Tribunal was whether the impugned domain name was deceptively similar to the petitioner's Trademark. 17. The petitioner is a well-known pharmaceutical company. The petitioner had asserted that it was using the Trademark 2DG'. 16. In view of the above, the limited scope of controversy required to be addressed by the Arbitral Tribunal was whether the impugned domain name was deceptively similar to the petitioner's Trademark. 17. The petitioner is a well-known pharmaceutical company. The petitioner had asserted that it was using the Trademark 2DG'. The petitioner had established that it had applied for registration of the Trademark 2DG' and was also using the said trademark in connection with one of its formulations. The details of the Trademarks in respect of which the petitioner had made applications to the Registrar of Trademarks, is as under: - 18. An image of the packing of a formulation depicting the mark 'O2DG' is set out below: 19. In view of the above, it was clear that there could be no doubt that the petitioner was using the Trademark 2DG' and had applied for its registration. 20. In view of the above, there can be no dispute that the impugned domain name is similar to the Trademark used by the petitioner in connection with the formulation 2-Deoxy-D-Glucose'. 21. The petitioner was also using its Trademark 2DEGE' and as noted by the Arbitral Tribunal, the petitioner had obtained the registration of that mark. However, the use of the said trademark does not in any manner lead to the conclusion that the petitioner was not using the Trademark 2DG' or was not a proprietor of the said trademark. 22. A plain reading of the impugned award indicates that the Arbitral Tribunal had confined its examination to the similarity between the impugned domain name and the petitioner's registered Trademark 2DEGE'. It appears that the Arbitral Tribunal had questioned the requirement of the petitioner to use the Trademark 2DG'. The impugned award proceeds on the Arbitral Tribunal's assumption that it was not necessary for the petitioner to use the Trademark 2DG'. This is apparent from a plain reading of paragraphs 22 and 23 of the impugned award. The said paragraphs are relevant and set out below: - "22. The TradeMarks in this case are two which are not clear. The Complainant has applied for "2DG" TradeMark and they obtained "2DEGE" Trademark. In the Complaint also, the Complainant has mentioned that "The Complainant has registration for its 2DEGE mark. 23. If the Complainant has registration for 2DEGE then why is the Complainant also focussing on the TradeMark 2DG." 23. The TradeMarks in this case are two which are not clear. The Complainant has applied for "2DG" TradeMark and they obtained "2DEGE" Trademark. In the Complaint also, the Complainant has mentioned that "The Complainant has registration for its 2DEGE mark. 23. If the Complainant has registration for 2DEGE then why is the Complainant also focussing on the TradeMark 2DG." 23. The Arbitral Tribunal had held that it was not clear whether the petitioner was using the Trademarks 2DG' or 2DEGE' and therefore, its right over the disputed name (the impugned domain name) was not proved. 24. The aforesaid reasoning and conclusion are, ex-facie, erroneous. There is no dispute that the petitioner was using both the Trademarks 2DEGE' and 2DG'. The petitioner's averments to the said effect were uncontested as respondent no. 1 had not joined the arbitral proceedings. The Arbitral Tribunal completely mis-directed itself by questioning the need of the petitioner to use the two Trademarks. It was clearly up to the petitioner to adopt the said trademarks for its formulations. It established that it had applied for registration of the Trademark 2DG' for one of its formulations. There was no allegation that the adoption of the said trademark was not bonafide. 25. Undisputedly, the impugned domain name is deceptively similar to the Trademark 2DG' adopted by the petitioner and there was no material on record to believe that respondent no.l has any legitimate right or interest in respect of the impugned domain name. Plainly, the petitioner was entitled to raise a dispute in terms of Sections 4(a) and (b) of the INDRP, as stated above. 26. In view of the above, this Court has no hesitation in accepting that the impugned award is vitiated by patent illegality. The petition is, accordingly, allowed and the impugned award is set aside.