Osho World Wins Dotcom Battle

New Delhi, 1 August 2000

News Release

"Truth has to win. Only truth will win. Satyamev Jayate," was the first
heartfelt reaction of Swami Chaitanya Keerti answering a phone call
from U.S.A. at 2 a. m. on Tuesday morning when he was informed that the
domain name oshoworld.com can be retained by Osho Dhyan Mandir in New Delhi.


M Kelly Tillery Esquire, arbitrator of the National Arbitration Forum in
Minneapolis, USA, disallowed the transfer of oshoworld.com to the New York
based Osho International Foundation from Osho Dhyan Mandir, New Delhi. Osho
International Foundation complained to the Forum against Osho Dhyam Mandir to
operate the website Oshoworld.com.


Swami Keerti added, "My very being knew that we have to win because it
is the resonance of the truth. It means that Osho resides in all of us and he
cannot be imprisoned by a handful of people claiming to be the owners of his
legacy.It is preposterous for them to say 'We own Osho'. Osho owns all of us.
Nobody owns Osho."


"This judgment means that Osho Centre leaders around the world can now carry
on without any worry or fear from self-appointed dictators who claim to own
everything related to Osho. Osho is free and eternally fresh breeze and we
should make sure that this breeze is not poisoned by any toxic elements.
Osho's vision cannot be fettered, traded or imprisoned by a few for unaccounted purposes."


"The decision means we should build up more pressure on these people
who have usurped Osho's legacy away from Pune and force them to return it to its
source - which is free domain, the hallmark of Osho's spiritual movement.
All Osho centers around the world should now demand full accountability and
transparency in managing the affairs of the Pune Commune instead of a few
running it like a personal fiefdom and taking arbitratory decisions.

"It is a matter of joy and jubilation for all Osho lovers, Sannyasins and
meditation centers around the world that their freedom to spread Osho's
message has been unbridled."


"The self-appointed dictators have been stopped in their unethical aims to
usurp Osho's vision. They were bound to lose it because it was against
the fundamental freedom and against Osho's spirit and message. Osho's
message is love, meditation and freedom, and not control by a handful of people
over his lovers and Neo-Sannyas Movement. (I have been associated with the
movement since 1971). Osho belongs to all.www.oshoworld.com is meant for all the
Osho lovers, Sannyasins and admirers and everybody who is seeking to drink
from this fountain, around the world," said Swami Keerti.


He went on, "Now Osho Dhyan Mandir will make his message freely available to
all through this website. It is not our victory - it is Osho's victory over
the insensitive manipulators who wanted to confine Osho and to restrict
Osho's lovers to spread his message.

"It is a landmark decision, a historical decision - a decision for spiritual
and religious freedom. The arbitrator has declared that Osho Dhyan Mandir's
use of this name seems to be primarily, if not solely, an authentic,
legitimate exercise of freedom of expression and/or religion protected
by US Constitution and UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights.


"Our freedom to spread Osho's vision has been protected by this decision and
now we are free to start this website and reach out to millions of seekers of
truth, freedom and bliss. We invite the whole world to share our joy.


Buddha says: 'When you attain to bliss, share it immediately and it becomes
manifold.' So friends, we share it with you all.


For further information please contact:


Swami Chaitanya Keerti


National Arbitration Forum

The Forum

P.O. Box 50191

Minneapolis, MN 55404


DECISION


Osho International Foundation v. Osho Dhyan Mandir and Atul Anand

Claim Number: FA0006000094990

PARTIES

Complainant is Osho International Foundation, New York, NY, USA

("Complainant"). Respondents are Osho Dhyan Mandir and Atul Anand, New

Delhi, India ("Respondents).


REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is "OSHOWORLD.COM", registered with Register.com.


PANELIST

M. Kelly Tillery, Esquire


PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum
("The Forum") electronically on 06/07/2000; The Forum received a hard copy of
the Complaint on 06/07/2000.


On 06/09/2000, Register.com confirmed by e-mail to The Forum that the domain
name "OSHOWORLD.COM" is registered with Register.com and that Respondent
Atul Anand of Respondent Osho Dhyan Mandir is the current registrant of the name.


On 06/12/2000, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of
Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a
deadline of 07/05/2000 by which Respondents could file a Response to the
Complaint, was transmitted to Respondents via email, post and fax, and
To all entities and persons listed on Respondents' registration as technical,
administrative and billing contacts by email.


On 7/10/00, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by
a Single Member Panel, The Forum appointed M. Kelly Tillery, Esquire as
Panelist.


RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondents to
Complainant.


PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant


Complainant contends that Respondents' registered domain name
"oshoworld.com" is confusingly similar to Complainant's registered marks
for "OSHO" including but not limited to USPTO Registration No. 2,174,607
for "OSHO", Registration No. 2,180,173 for "OSHO", Registration No. 1,815,840
for "OSHO" and Pending Application Serial No. 75683097 for "OSHO" and
Pending Application Serial No. 75834601 for "OSHO ACTIVE MEDITATIONS."

Complainant also claims that it maintains three (3) registered domain names
"osho.com", "osho.org" and "osho.net" all of which resolve into an active
Web Site presumably operated by Complainant.


Complainant acknowledges that the Osho name/mark originates with the
internationally known spiritual leader Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh, also known as
Osho. Complainant claims to operate a worldwide publishing operation in the
areas of meditation, body-mind-spirit philosophy and spirituality with
respect to the teachings of the mystic Osho. Complainant also claims to
operate the Osho Commune International in Poona, India.


Complainant claims that Respondent registered "oshoworld.com" in bad faith,
that Respondent does not hold rights or legitimate interests in respect of
its domain name and that Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract,
for commercial gain, Internet users to its Web Site by creating a likelihood
of confusion with Complainant's trademarks and service marks as to the
source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of Respondent's Web Site.


B. Respondent


Respondents, a non-profit, charitable Indian Corporation and its
Administrator, claim to have registered the domain name "oshoworld.com" for
the good faith purpose of discussing the teachings of Osho and promoting the
Osho World Galleria in New Delhi, India.


Respondent contends that "this is a case of a commercial entity trying to
exercise monopoly of the name Osho, a well-known Indian spiritual mystic
with hundreds of thousands of followers." Complainant further contends that
there are hundreds of independent mediation centers which study and spread
Osho's teachings around the world and that the term Osho not only refers to
the individual, Osho, but also to the entire spiritual movement that
believes and follows his teachings.


Respondent contends that Osho was born in India in 1932 as Rajneesh Chandra
Mohan. While serving as a Professor of Philosophy, he traveled all over
India giving lectures and conducting meditation camps and adopted the name
Bhagwan Shree Rajaneesh. In 1989, he adopted "Osho" as his "name"
explaining that the term derived from William James' word "Oceania" which
means "dissolving into the ocean."


Respondent contends that until Bhagwan Shree Rajaneesh adopted the name Osho
in 1989, Osho was never used by any of the parties to this dispute.
Respondent further contends that from the time of his adoption of this name
Osho in 1989, many institutions were established in India devoted to
spreading his teachings and ones that existed incorporated Osho's new name.

Respondent further contends that Osho "left his body" (died) in 1990.

Respondent further contends that it is a non-profit, charitable organization
registered under the Societies Act in India which has continuously operated

Osho Meditation Camps to spread the teachings of Osho and has conducted
mediations in Delhi since its creation in 1996.


Respondent Atul Anad is Administrator of Respondent Osho Dhyan Mandir and
also a Trustee of the Osho World Foundation, an international, charitable
organization dedicated to promoting the teachings of Osho, which operates
Osho World, a galleria in New Delhi, India. The Galleria is a bookstore,
meditation center, performance studio and study area for all things related
to Osho. It opened in New Delhi on April 1, 2000.


Respondents contend that Osho is not a valid trademark for materials by or
regarding Osho, that Complainant has committed fraud on the U.S. Patent and
Trademark Office and has unclean hands, that the domain name is not
confusingly similar to any mark in which Complainant has an interest,
that

Respondents have legitimate rights and interests in the domain name and that

the Respondents registered and are using "oshoworld.com" in good faith.


FINDINGS

Complainant has not met its burden to prove by a preponderance of the
relevant, admissible, evidence that Respondents' domain name is identical or
confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has
rights.


Complainant has not met its burden to prove by a preponderance of the
relevant, admissible, evidence that Respondents have no rights or legitimate
interests in respect to the domain name.

Complainant has not met its burden to prove by a preponderance of the
relevant, admissible, evidence that Respondents' domain name has been
registered and is being used in bad faith.


DISCUSSION

Paragraph 4(a) of the ICANN Uniform Domain Name Dispute Policy ("Policy")
directs that Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to
support a claim that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred:


(1) the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly
similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights;


(2) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the
domain name; and


(3) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.


A. Identical and/or Confusingly Similar


Respondent's domain name, "oshoworld.com" is obviously not identical to
either "OSHO" or "OSHO ACTIVE MEDITATIONS", the registered and/or
applied for trademarks or service marks of Complainant. However, under Rule

4(a)(i), Complainant may prove that a Respondent's domain name is
"confusingly similar" to a trademark or service mark in which the
Complainant has rights. In order to determine whether the domain name is
"confusingly similar" to a trademark or service mark, this Arbitrator must
examine and compare the marks in their entirety.

However, Complainant must first prove that it has rights in a trademark or
service mark and then that Respondents' domain name is confusingly similar
thereto.


This Arbitrator is troubled by Complainant's identification of itself in
the Complaint as "Osho International Foundation" (hereinafter "OIF"), the
Swiss Corporation which owns three Federally- registered trademarks. Only
after Respondent claimed that Complainant was not OIF, did Complainant
submit an Affidavit stating that Complainant is in fact not the Swiss
Corporation listed as the owner of said marks, but rather a New York
corporation, "America Multi Media Corporation d/b/a 'Osho International

Foundation'", purportedly "a wholly-owned subsidiary, agent, and agreement
manager" for OIF. Complainant appears to be a New York for profit entity.

The evidence of Complainant's authority to act on behalf of OIF is
insubstantial at best and not sufficient to prove that Complainant has
rights in any marks at issue here.


This record is also insufficient to establish that OSHO is generic as
claimed by Respondent, but it is more than sufficient to establish that OSHO
does not and cannot serve as a source indicator and/or distinguishing
moniker for Complainant and/or Complainant's goods and services. Under
these circumstances, there is serious doubt at to whether Complainant
"has rights" in such a trademark or service mark because the purported mark
does not and cannot serve a trademark purpose.


Complainant has thus not proven that the marks in question are ones "in
which the Complainant has rights."


There is no evidence that Bhagman Shree Rajneesh (Osho) ever commercially
exploited the name or mark OSHO during his natural life (while still "in his
body") or that he or his estate, if one was ever established, ever
authorized either Party or any one else to utilize his name or mark.
The first use at all of "Osho" appears to have been by this spiritual leader
himself in 1989 and he died (or "left his body") in 1990. Though he has
said, "It is not my name, it is a healing sound", it appears that the
parties, several national trademark offices and many others have and
continue to use same as a name and a mark. The record also reflects
that Osho himself had little regard for or concern with intellectual property
rights, including any related to the use of his chosen name.



As this Arbitrator imagines Osho himself might observe, one cannot possess
trademark rights in a name/mark of such universal significance which cannot
and clearly does not serve as a source indicator or distinguishing moniker
for Complainant or Complaint's goods or services.


The overwhelming evidence indicates that it refers to Osho, his teachings
and his spiritual movement. Respondent has produced credible evidence, not
disputed by Complainant, that almost 500 meditation centers around the
world, not affiliated with Complainant, operate utilizing the "Osho" name.


There is also no credible, admissible evidence of any actual confusion
between Complainant's registered marks and/or applied for marks and/or
registered domain names and Respondent's domain name registered on 9/29/99
and/or Respondent's use of the name/mark "Osho Mediation Camps" in India
since 1996 and/or Respondent's use of "OshoWorld" in connection with its
galleria in New Delhi, India.


This Arbitrator does not and cannot invalidate the U.S. and foreign mark
registrations of OIF, a Swiss Corporation. This Arbitrator holds only that
for all of the above-stated reasons, Complainant has no rights in any marks

which are identical or confusingly similar to the domain name in question.


B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The evidence establishes that Respondents have real and substantial
"legitimate interests" in respect of the domain name in question.
Respondents have used the name since the date of incorporation on August 6,
1996 and has used OshoWorld at least since April 1, 2000.


Respondent has operated the OSHO MEDITATION CENTER (the English translation
of Respondent's registered corporate name) since approximately 1996, long
prior to its receipt on 6/12/00 of the Commencement Notification. Such
clearly satisfies the requirements of Rule 4(c)(i) and establishes in

Respondent's "rights to and legitimate interests in" its domain name.


A. Registration and Use in Bad Faith


Respondents' domain name has not been registered and is not being used in
bad faith. Not one of the provisions of Rule 4(b) are implicated by the
evidence of record.


Respondent, ODM, a non-profit, charitable education and spiritual entity,
clearly registered and is using its domain name in good faith. The only
provision of the Rules that could possibly be implicated here is Rule

4(b)(iv). However, as set forth hereinabove, there is no credible evidence
of record to establish that Respondent has intentionally attempted to
attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its Web Site or other
on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's
mark as to source, sponsorship affiliation or endorsement of its Web Site or
location of a product or service on its Web Site or location. Rule

4(b)(iv). Respondents' use appears to be not for commercial gain and is
not, as explained hereinabove, creating a likelihood of confusion. On the
contrary, Respondents' use seems to be primarily, if not solely, an
authentic, legitimate exercise of freedom of expression and/or religion
protected by the United States Constitution, Amendment 1, the Constitution
of India, Article 25, Clause 1 and the United Nations Universal Declaration
of Human Rights, Article 18. This Arbitrator can conceive of few uses that
would more deserve to be called "in good faith."


To grant Complainant's request for relief would be to permit virtual
monopolization on the Internet by Complainant of any domain name which
includes the name of a great spiritual teacher and leader. While making no
judgment on the relative merits or validity of the world's religions or
spiritual movements or any leader thereof, this Arbitrator finds that
permitting this would be as improper as doing the same with Christianity,
Judaism, Islam, Zorastrianism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism,
Shintoism or any of the several hundred other of the world's religions
and/or spiritual movements. Neither The Lanham Act nor the ICANN Policy and

Rules contemplate or intend such a result.

UNTIMELY SUBMISSIONS

After the deadline for submissions, the National Arbitration Forum received

four (4) additional submissions from the parties, two each from Complainant
and Respondent: Reply to Respondent's Answer, including six (6) new Exhibits

[received 7/13/00], (2) Petition to Strike Complainant's Untimely Reply

[received 7/18/00], (3) Petition to Deny Respondent's Petition to Strike

Complainant's Reply [received 7/20/00] and (4) Respondent's Sur-Response to

Complainant's Untimely Reply [received 7/21/00].

This proceeding is governed by the ICANN Uniform Domain Name Dispute
Resolution Policy ("Policy") the ICANN Rule for Uniform Domain Name Dispute
Resolution ("Rules") and The National Arbitration Forum's Supplemental Rules
to ICANN's Uniform Domain Name Dispute Rules ("Supplemental Rules").

Rule 2 entitled "Communications" provides in Subsection (c) that "any
communication to the Provider or the Panel shall be made by the means and in
the manner (including number of copies) stated in the Provider's

Supplemental Rules." "Supplemental Rules" are defined in Rule 1 as ".
. .

the rules adopted by the Provider administering a proceeding to supplement
these Rules . . . which" . . . shall not be inconsistent with the policy or
these Rules and shall cover topics as fees, word and page limits and
guidelines, the means for communicating with the Provider and the Panel, and
the form of cover sheets."

Pursuant to the Policy and the Rules, The National Arbitration Forum
promulgated Supplemental Rules, Number 7 of which provides as follows:


7. Submission of other Written Statements and Documents; No Amendment to the
Complaint. A party may submit additional written statements and documents to The
Forum and the opposing party(s) not later than five (5) calendar days after
the date the Response is submitted or the last date the Response was due to
be submitted to the Forum, whichever occurs first. A fee of $150 and proof
of the service of these submissions upon the opposing party(s) shall
accompany each such submission. No such submission shall be considered by
the Panel if not timely submitted, or if the required fee is not paid and
the proof or service does not accompany the submission. The parties may not
amend the Complaint or the Response.


There is no question here that all four (4) of the aforementioned
submissions were "not timely submitted" Supplemental Rule 7. However, Rule
10 entitled "General Powers of the Panel" provides in Subsection (c) that,
"The Panel shall ensure that the administrative proceeding takes place with
due expedition and it may, at the request of a party or on its own motion,
extend, in exceptional cases, a period of time fixed by these Rules or by
the Panel." Thus, this Arbitrator may, "in exceptional cases" exercise
discretion to consider one or more of these untimely submissions.


In order to determine whether this is in fact "an exceptional case" and
whether such discretion should be exercised in favor of considering any of
such submissions, it is, of course, necessary to review all four untimely
submissions. Having done so, this Arbitrator finds that this is "an
exceptional case", at least in regard to the circumstances and the substance
of all of the untimely submissions. Thus, this Arbitrator will exercise
discretion and will consider all untimely submissions. Respondent's
Petition to Strike is denied and Complainant's Petition to Deny Respondent's

Petition is denied.


DECISION

Complainant's request that the domain name be transferred is denied.


M. Kelly Tillery, Esquire

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

July 28, 2000