Analysis of Legal Issues Related to Cybersquatting and Trademark in India

ABSTRACT

In this paper, the Author highlights the concept of cybersquatting and its effects on the trademarks. Despite being a relatively recent phenomenon, cybersquatting poses serious risks to registered trademarks, especially in India, where no explicit regulation addresses the problem. The Author draws attention to the possible dangers this practice may pose in the future and emphasizes the pressing necessity for extensive legislative action. The study also compares how other legal systems throughout the globe have dealt with the problem of cybersquatting, offering suggestions for possible frameworks for India.

INTRODUCTION

With the increase of technology in the world, problems related to it are also arising. In the case of protection of Intellectual Property Rights, cybersquatting is a concept that is a great threat to the registered trademark in the digital world.

Cybersquatting is the bad-faith registration or use of domain names identical or similar to trademarks, brand names, or personal names, aiming to profit from their reputation or goodwill. It involves exploiting intellectual property for financial gain or misdirection and is addressed by laws and dispute resolution mechanisms globally.

To capitalize on the prestige and reputation of these third parties, cybersquatters register third-party trademarks, trade names, company names, and other similar spelled terms. They do this by either deceiving current or potential customers or by selling the domain name to the legitimate owner for a hefty fee.

Differences in Domain Name and Trademark

Domain Name and Trademark are both different concepts. In the case of a domain name, it is used to give access to the web page of the company on whose name it is registered, and it is a combination of characters, letters, numbers, etc.

Examples of domain names are “abc.org, ABC.in, etc.”

While in the case of Trade Mark is basically an identity card of any service or product provided by any organization or company, it should be unique in every aspect which distinguish one product from other in the market and to avoid public confusion.

Legal Framework in India to deal with this Issue

In the current condition, there is no existing law to deal with the problem of cybersquatting, unlike in various developed countries with comprehensive frameworks to deal with the Issue[1]. However, the courts, in various judicial pronouncements, extend the domain and applicability of the Trademark Act 1999 to cybersquatting due to a lack of specific law to deal with this. For example, in the case of Satyam Infoway Ltd. vs. Sifynet Solutions[2], the court applied the trademark act to prevent cybersquatting.

Similarly, in the case of Rediff Communication Ltd Vs. Cyberbooth &Anr[3]., the Bombay High Court held that the defendant’s use of the word “Rediff” is an infringement of the plaintiff’s trademark.

Court held that in digital world, a domain name also serves the purpose of distinguished identity which is associated with the particular organization or company making it a similar to concept of trademark[4].

Similarly, in the landmark case of Yahoo Inc. vs Akash Arora & Anr[5]., the court relied upon the concept of passing off in order to deal with the case of cybersquatting and held that the use of a domain name that is deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s trademark is passing off.

Furthermore, section 43 and section 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 deals with the concept of unauthorized access to computer and computer data under which the case of cybersquatting can be invoked.

International laws

United States of America

The Anti Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA) was passed in the US. In order to have the domain name transferred into the registered owner’s name, the ACPA allows the owner of a registered trademark to sue for alleged cybersquatting in a federal court.  The ACPA provides remedies such as statutory damages ranging from $1,000 to $100,000 per domain name, transfer or cancellation of the infringing domain, and injunctive relief. Courts examine factors like the registrant’s intent, their use of the domain, and the trademark’s distinctiveness to establish liability.

Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy

An internationally accepted framework created by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) is the Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy (UDRP). It offers an alternate dispute resolution process that allows domain name disputes to be settled out of court. .com,.org, and.net are examples of generic top-level domains (gTLDs) that are subject to the UDRP. In accordance with this guideline, trademark owners can lodge complaints to demonstrate that the domain was registered unjustly and in bad faith.

Cyubersquating
[Image Sources: Shutterstock]

European Union

Regulation (EU) 2019/517 governs cybersquatting in the European Union that involves the.eu top-level domain. Speculative or abusive domain name registrations that violate trademarks or other rights are prohibited under this law. Affected parties may contest registrations in bad faith using dispute resolution procedures; the victorious claims will be granted control of the contested domain. This procedure is supervised by the European Registry for Internet Domains (EURid), which also makes sure that EU regulations are followed. The rule seeks to encourage equitable use of the.eu domain space while strengthening trademark protections inside the EU’s digital ecosystem.

Recommendation to deal with lacuna

The Indian Judiciary, by their various judicial pronouncement, deals with the Issue of cybersquatting by applying the provisions of passing off and trademarking. But there is still a need of the hour to have some specific law and policy to completely address this problem, especially in this digital age[6].

One of the major problems in domain names is the jurisdictional Issue; a domain name is accessible to every corner of the world, which also leads to cross-border disputes, and there must be proper policies and guidelines to deal with this.

Such as under Article 3 of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP), which has the proper framework and guidelines to deal with this jurisdictional Issue.

There are a few suggestions in order to deal with the Issue of cybersquatting in India-

  1. First, there must be specific laws or guidelines dealing with cybersquatting.
  2. There must be guidelines that deal with the jurisdictional aspects of domain names and any cross-border disputes associated with them.
  3. The proper definition of cybersquatting in the trademark act and domain name should be given equal protection as that of a registered trademark.

Conclusion

Cybersquatting continues to pose a significant challenge in the digital age, creating concerns for both domain and trademark holders[7]. As India progresses in its digital transformation, addressing this Issue becomes essential to promote innovation, uphold fair competition, and protect intellectual property rights. Although the existing legal framework provides some remedies, it is inadequate to address the complexities of the evolving digital environment. To effectively combat cybersquatting, there is a pressing need for a well-rounded legislative framework supported by greater awareness and education.

Author: Priyanka Gehlot, in case of any queries please contact/write back to us via email to chhavi@khuranaandkhurana.com or at Khurana & Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorney.

References

  • Case Laws
  1. Yahoo Inc. vs Akash Arora & Anr, 1999 IIAD(DELHI)229.
  2. Rediff Communication Ltd Vs. Cyberbooth &Anr., 1999(4) BOMCR278.
  3. Satyam Infoway Ltd. vs. Sifynet Solutions, 2004 (3) AWC 2366 SC.
  • Articles
  1. Nikhil Mishra and Damini Sharma, Cybersquatting and Trademark Issues- An Analysis with reference to India, Manupatra, (5 May 2021). https://articles.manupatra.com/article-details/Cybersquatting-and-Trademark-Issues-An-analysis-with-reference-to-India
  1. An Analysis of the concept of Cybersquatting & Legal Issues Pertaining to Trademarks in India, Mondaq, (18 Dec. 2023). https://www.mondaq.com/india/trademark/1402068/an-analysis-of-the-concept-of-cybersquatting-legal-issues-pertaining-to-trademarks-in-india
  1. Shristi Mittal, Trademark Cyber-squatting laws in India, Manupatra (24th 2021) https://articles.manupatra.com/article-details/Trademark-Cyber-Squatting-Laws-in-
  1. Neeraj Vyas and Shilpa Chaudhary, what is Cybersquatting, Bar and Bench, (23rd 2024), https://www.barandbench.com/law-firms/view-point/cybersquatting

[1] Nikhil Mishra and Damini Sharma, Cybersquatting and Trademark Issues- An Analysis with reference to India, Manupatra, (5th May. 2021). https://articles.manupatra.com/article-details/Cybersquatting-and-Trademark-Issues-An-analysis-with-reference-to-India

[2] Satyam Infoway Ltd. vs. Sifynet Solutions, 2004 (3) AWC 2366 SC.

[3] Rediff Communication Ltd Vs. Cyberbooth &Anr., 1999(4) BOMCR278.

[4] Shristi Mittal, Trademark Cybersquatting laws in India, (24th Feb. 2021). https://articles.manupatra.com/article-details/Trademark-Cyber-Squatting-Laws-in-

[5] Yahoo Inc. vs Akash Arora & Anr., 1999 IIAD(DELHI)229.

[6]An Analysis of the concept of Cybersquatting & Legal Issues Pertaining to Trademark in India, Mondaq, (18th Dec. 2023). https://www.mondaq.com/india/trademark/1402068/an-analysis-of-the-concept-of-cybersquatting-legal-issues-pertaining-to-trademarks-in-indi

Leave a Reply

Categories

Archives

  • January 2025
  • December 2024
  • November 2024
  • October 2024
  • September 2024
  • August 2024
  • July 2024
  • June 2024
  • May 2024
  • April 2024
  • March 2024
  • February 2024
  • January 2024
  • December 2023
  • November 2023
  • October 2023
  • September 2023
  • August 2023
  • July 2023
  • June 2023
  • May 2023
  • April 2023
  • March 2023
  • February 2023
  • January 2023
  • December 2022
  • November 2022
  • October 2022
  • September 2022
  • August 2022
  • July 2022
  • June 2022
  • May 2022
  • April 2022
  • March 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • September 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010