The internet has brought a revolution which can be equalled with the industrial revolution of the 19th century.

The internet was launched as a communication tool for the masses but, within a few years, it became one of the most important tools of modern day communication be it for business transactions, governmental policies, social interaction etc. It has comprehensively extended the reach of technology and acquisition of data. It has provided opportunities to millions and also brought liabilities to many especially in the field of intellectual property, data privacy etc. The Internet has become a very powerful tool, having the ability to create jobs, shorten product life cycles, circumvent international communications barriers, and transcend political and social boundaries. The challenge the law has faced in recent years is, how to foster the development of intellectual property on the Internet while preventing its unauthorized use. A close relationship exists between trademarks and rights in domain names. A trademark is a word, name, symbol or device which is used in connection with goods to indicate the source of the goods and to distinguish them from others goods (a service mark is the same as a trademark except that it identifies and distinguishes the source of a service rather than a product). Trademark rights may be used to prevent others from using a confusingly similar mark, but not to prevent others from making the same goods or from selling the same goods or services under a clearly different mark. As such, in order to serve as a trademark, the word, name, or symbol must not simply convey to the buyer qualities or characteristics of the goods, but it must be unique and distinctive.

A trademark comes into existence as soon as a business starts using that trademark in commerce. While registering a trademark with the United States Patent & Trademark Office offers a trademark holder certain benefits, it is not necessary to establish rights in a trademark.

Once a business has established rights in a trademark, it can prevent others from using that trademarkor confusingly similar words or symbolson similar goods. However, the trademark holder generally cannot prevent another person from using that trademark on different goods, where there is no likelihood of confusion. As an example, the car company Lexus cannot prevent the computer services company Lexis-Nexis from using the trademark Lexis, because cars and computer services are so different that there is no likelihood of confusion.

Trademark law dovetails closely with anti-cybersquatting law. The owner of a trademark has the right to prevent another person from using the trademarkor a confusingly similar variation of the trademarkin a domain name, if the person has a bad faith intent to profit from the domain name. Congress has determined that it is unlawful for a person to register a domain name containing anothers trademark with an intent to profit on the others trademark. However, a trademark holder cannot prevent another from using the trademark in connection with sufficiently different goods. As such, Congress has required a trademark holder to show that the cybersquatter had a bad faith intent to profit from the domain name.

Occasionally, people speak about a domain name copyright or a copyright in a domain name. These are inaccurate and misleading expressions. Copyright is a form of protection provided to the authors of original works of authorship including literary, dramatic, musical, artistic, and certain other intellectual works. The copyright protects the form of expression rather than the subject matter of the writing. For example, a description of a machine could be copyrighted, but this would only prevent others from copying the description; it would not prevent others from writing a description of their own or from making and using the machine. Because it is unlikely that a domain name constitutes an original work of authorship as used in the Copyright Act, this body of law is not the most suitable for attacking cybersquatters.

We have addresses for our homes and offices. The same way domain names are nothing but simple forms of addresses on the internet. These addresses enable users to locate websites on the net in an easy manner. Domain names correspond to various IP (Internet Protocol) numbers which connect various computers and enable direct network routing system to direct data requests to the correct addressee. In other words a domain name is a uniform source locator. Domain names are of two types. The following figure would give a better idea:-

Besides locating sites, domain names also have a function of identifying businesses and their goods and services on the net, which gives them an edge over their competitors. The introduction of new generic top-level domains (GTLDs) to complement those already existing (.com, .org, .net, .edu, .gov, .mil and .int) has been the subject of intense debate for a number of years. The ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) has played a very important role in getting these new domain names passed. The domain names can be registered by approaching any ICANN accredited registrar.

The practice that's come to be known as cybersquatting originated at a time when most businesses were not savvy about the commercial opportunities on the Internet. Some entrepreneurial souls registered the names of well-known companies as domain names, with the intent of selling the names back to the companies when they finally woke up. Panasonic, Fry's Electronics, Hertz and Avon were among the "victims" of cybersquatters. Opportunities for cybersquatters are rapidly diminishing, because most businesses now know that nailing down domain names is a high priority. Internet law is complex because courts are not familiar with internet technology or the special laws passed by Congress to create special rights for companies doing business on the internet. Internet attorneys who specialize in internet law issues are critical in pursuing your legal rights. For instance, domain names can be incredible assets for a business. Like a well placed piece of commercial real estate, domain names can be the key to turning a dwindling business into a healthy and vibrant economic powerhouse. A well thought out and developed domain name can increase sales, increase brand recognition, and extend a business reach across international borders. Cybersquatting and cybersquatters seek to profit from the inherent value that domain names provide to trademark holders. Cybersquatting cases can be filed through two similar methods. The first is the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP). The UDRP is a contract created by ICANN that every domain name registrant of a major top-level domain name (.com, .net, or .org) must agree to in order to register a domain name. Under this contract, the registrant agrees to have disputes over the domain name, specifically disputes over the abusive registration of a domain name, decided by arbitration under the Policy. These arbitration proceedings are typically brought in front of the National Arbitration Forum or the World Intellectual Property Organization. Cybersquatting (also known as domain squatting), according to the United States federal law known as the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, is registering, trafficking in, or using a domain name with bad faith intent to profit from the goodwill of a trademark belonging to someone else. The cybersquatter then offers to sell the domain to the person or company who owns a trademark contained within the name at an inflated price. The term is derived from "squatting", which is the act of occupying an abandoned or unoccupied space or building that the squatter does not own, rent, or otherwise have permission to use. Cybersquatting, however, is a bit different in that the domain names that

are being "squatted" are (sometimes but not always) is being paid for through the registration process by the cybersquatters. Cybersquatters usually ask for prices far greater than that at which they purchased it. Some cybersquatters put up derogatory remarks about the person or company the domain is me Domain name ownership has changed dramatically over the past ten years for a variety of reasons. Doing business on the web has become an important, if not essential channel for many businesses around the world, and websites are identified with their owners in large part due to the domain name used by the owner. As a result, obtaining a domain name that is closely associated with a business is very important for most ventures.

In addition to identifying the owner of the domain name and the source of goods sold through a domain name, domain names can become brands themselves. Even the most generic and descriptive domain names, like Pets.com (used on a website selling pet supplies) and Claus.com (used on a Santa Claus-related website), can become brands due to their use in the marketplace and the meaning consumers attach to these descriptive domain names. As a result, acquiring premiere domain names that contain simple descriptive words and phrases is important for many companies in building their online brand.

A fact that amazes many people is that 25% of all Internet traffic to websites results from socalled, direct navigation. In other words, the traffic comes from people typing in a domain name directly into their browser's address field. Many of these domain names typed by users are the names of specific companies, and users want to navigate to the website of those companies. However, millions of searches each day are users typing generic words into their browser, followed by, .com (for example, cellphones.com, mp3.com, and videogames.com). Domain names containing generic and descriptive words receive millions of Internet visitors each day, comprising a very significant portion of all Internet traffic today.

In most cases, a persons name will not constitute a protectable trademark because that person does not use his or her name as a unique identifier for goods or services he or she sells. Thus, even when a person has a unique name, he or she may not be able to protect it under traditional trademark laws.

However, this does not prevent an unscrupulous cybersquatter from registering a domain name that contains somebody elses personal name, such as www.JohnSmith.com. Congress recognized this loophole, and sought to address it in the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act ("ACPA"). Among other things, the ACPA prevents a person from registering a domain name that consists of the personal name of another living person, or a substantially and confusingly similar name, with the specific intent of profiting from the sale of the domain name. Therefore, in order to invoke this section of the ACPA, the cybersquatter must have intended to sell the domain name for profit.

In certain cases, a personal namesuch as a celebritys namecan acquire sufficient recognition to become a trademark. For example, it has been found that the singer Celine Dion has acquired trademark rights in her name because in addition to her fame, she uses her name in connection with a variety of goods and services. Where a persons name has achieved trademark status, he or she can rely on the less restrictive provisions of the ACPA to obtain relief. In this case, the names owner need only show that the cybersquatter registered the domain name in bad faithrather than showing that the cybersquatter sought to sell the domain name for financial gain.

People with significant name recognition should not ignore the serious harmful consequences of letting cybersquatters register domain names containing their personal names. Celebrity domain names have become big business. Such a domain name can easily bring in thousands of visitors of month, and may present content that is not in the celebritys best interest, such as explicit, adult-oriented content. As such, people should actively police the potential cybersquatting of their personal names.

Another startling facts is that the domain name registration system does not require domain name registrants to conduct any sort of trademark search before registering a domain name. As a result, in a matter of minutes, anyone can register (unlawfully, that is) domain names

containing variations of any world-famous trademark imaginable.ant to represent in an effort to encourage the subject to buy the domain from them. Cybersquatters frequently own thousandsor even hundreds of thousands or millionsof domain names, which are typically misspellings or variations of others trademarks. Cybersquatters dont acquire these domain names out of spite or for amusement. Rather, they acquire these domain names to make money. Its all about the income stream, and if the income isnt there, the cybersquatter will drop the domain name.

This is how it works: The cybersquatter registers a domain name containing anothers trademark and sets up a website. The cybersquatter displays advertisements on the website on behalf of advertisers willing to pay the cybersquatter anywhere from a few pennies to a few dollars each time somebody clicks on one of the ads. The cybersquatter then counts on the fact that Internet users will type in the cybersquatted domain name into their web browser and click on the ads. Multiply this by a hundred clicks per day, and multiply that by a thousand domain names, and suddenly were talking about a lot of money.

Cybersquatters recognize that a single domain name can bring in hundreds of dollars a day, and they capitalize on this by acquiring domain names that will yield substantial user traffic. Often, these are domain names that incorporate misspellings or variations of the best known trademarks. As an example, cybersquatters register more than 2000 domain names every day containing the trademark Microsoft. As another example, over 10,000 domain names exist containing variations of the trademark Coke/Coca-Cola.

While some of these businesses have re-branded themselves as domainers in an effort to legitimize their operations, the line between lawful domain name ownership and cybersquatting is not always so clear. And for every supposedly legitimate domainer, there are several outright cybersquatters operating from safe havens in the former Soviet Union or parts of Asia, who register domain names that overtly infringe upon others trademarks. Regardless of whether a cybersquatter owns one domain name or 100,000 domains names, its motive is the same: to generate money by trading off the goodwill of others trademarks.

ANTICYBERSQUATTING CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT The Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA), 15 U.S.C. 1125(d), is an American law enacted in 1999 and that established a cause of action for registering, trafficking in, or using a domain name confusingly similar to, or dilutive of, a trademark or personal name. The law was designed to thwart cybersquatters who register Internet domain names containing trademarks with no intention of creating a legitimate web site, but instead plan to sell the domain name to the trademark owner or a third party. Critics of the ACPA complain about the non-global scope of the Act and its potential to restrict free speech, while others refute these complaints. Under the ACPA, a trademark owner may bring a cause of action against a domain name registrant who (1) has a bad faith intent to profit from the mark and (2) registers, traffics in, or uses a domain name that is (a) identical or confusingly similar to a distinctive mark, (b) identical or confusingly similar to or dilutive of a famous mark, or (c) is a trademark protected by 18 U.S.C. 706 (marks involving the Red Cross) or 36 U.S.C. 220506 (marks relating to the Olympics). A trademark is famous if the owner can prove that the mark is widely recognized by the general consuming public of the United States as a designation of source of the goods or services of the mark's owner. Trafficking in the context of domain names includes, but is not limited to sales, purchases, loans, pledges, licenses, exchanges of currency, and any other transfer for consideration or receipt in exchange for consideration. The ACPA also requires that the mark be distinctive or famous at the time of registration. In determining whether the domain name registrant has a bad faith intent to profit, a court may consider many factors, including nine that are outlined in the statute: 1. the registrants trademark or other intellectual property rights in the domain name; 2. whether the domain name contains the registrants legal or common name;

3. the registrants prior use of the domain name in connection with the bona fide offering of goods or services; 4. the registrants bona fide noncommercial or fair use of the mark in a site accessible by the domain name; 5. the registrants intent to divert customers from the mark owners online location that could harm the goodwill represented by the mark, for commercial gain or with the intent to tarnish or disparage the mark; 6. the registrants offer to transfer, sell, or otherwise assign the domain name to the mark owner or a third party for financial gain, without having used the mark in a legitimate site; 7. the registrants providing misleading false contact information when applying for registration of the domain name; 8. the registrants registration or acquisition of multiple domain names that are identical or confusingly similar to marks of others; and 9. the extent to which the mark in the domain is distinctive or famous. The ACPA does not prevent the fair use of trademarks or any use protected by the First Amendment, which includes gripe sites. In Mayflower Transit, L.L.C. v. Prince, 314 F. Supp. 2d 362 (D.N.J 2004), the court found that the first two prongs of Mayflower's ACPA claim were easily met because (1) their registered trademark was distinctive and (2) Defendants mayflowervanline.com was confusingly similar to Plaintiffs Mayflower trademark. However, when the court was examining the third prong of Plaintiffs ACPA claim, whether Defendant registered its domain name with the bad faith intent to profit from Plaintiff, the court found Defendant had a bona fide non commercial use of the mark, therefore, the ACPA claim failed.Defendants motive for registering the disputed domain names was to express his customer dissatisfaction through the medium of the Internet. The domain name registrar or registry or other domain name authority is not liable for injunctive or monetary relief except in the case of bad faith or reckless disregard. While 1125 protects trademark owners, 15 U.S.C. 1129 protects any living person from having their personal name included in a domain name, but only when the domain name is registered for profitable resale. While the ACPA contemplated the purchase of domain names for resale to trademark owners, it did not contemplate the more modern practice of domaining. Domaining is the business of

registering a domain name and parking it or placing pay per click ads on it. Domainers rely on type in traffic, which is when Internet surfers type in the domain name rather than using a search engine to find what they are looking for. Domainers can make a lot of money in this business of buying and selling domain names. Some domainers relied on domain tasting, which involves placing pay-per-click ads on the domain for five days (or less) to determine whether the ads will make more than the annual cost of the domain. If the domain is dropped within the five day grace period, no fee is incurred. An industry has grown up out of this business with domainers taking part in these mass registrations. This practice was largely eliminated by 2009, when ICANN began raising fees to registrars with excessive domain tasting. In Verizon California, Inc. v. Navigation Catalyst Systems, 568 F. Supp. 2d 1088 (C.D. Cal. 2008), the domainer lost under the ACPA. One of the defendants, Basic Fusion, Inc. argued that they were not cybersquatters, but as an Internet registrar accredited by ICANN they could register domain names on behalf of its customers and it specialized in "bulk registration." Navigation Catalyst Systems, another defendant and a customer of Basic Fusion, used their "proprietary automated tool" to find domain names that were not already registered and then registered them using Basic Fusion. Navigation used the five days following the registration (the "add grace period") to put advertisements on the websites making money from the advertisements even when they dropped the domain name registration before the five day window closed. Plaintiff Verizon argued that defendants "registered" 1,392 domain names that were confusingly similar to plaintiff's trademarks. The Court found that defendants used the confusingly similar domain names with bad faith intent to profit. The federal Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA) enables cybersquatting victims to recover their domain names even when the cybersquatter is located in another country, or where the cybersquatter cannot be identified at all. Such actions are referred to as in rem actions. While cybersquatting victims cannot recover damages, costs, or fees with an in rem action, they can recover their domain names. To succeed with an in rem action under the ACPA, the trademark owner must show:

Ownership of the trademark; The trademark is distinctive or famous;

The domain name and trademark are either identical or confusingly similar (or dilutive for famous marks);

The plaintiff has tried to inform the registrant of the domain name of the violation and the plaintiffs intent to file an in rem action; and

The court does not have jurisdiction over the registrant, or the plaintiff was unable to find the registrant, despite a good faith effort to do so.

To date, it is unclear whether the definition of cybersquatting is narrower for in rem claims under ACPA, as compared with in personam actions. Specifically, ambiguity continues to exist as to whether a plaintiff in an in rem action must demonstrate the registrant's bad faith.

Recognizing Cybersquatting How do you know if the domain name you want is being used by a cybersquatter? Follow these steps to find out.

Check where the domain name takes you. As a general rule, first check to see if the domain name takes you to a website. If it does not take you to a functioning website, but instead takes you to a site stating "this domain name for sale," or "under construction," or "can't find server," the likelihood increases that you are dealing with a cybersquatter. The absence of a real site may indicate that the domain name owner's only purpose in buying the name is to sell it back to you at a higher price. Of course, absence of a website does not always mean the presence of a cybersquatter. There may also be an innocent explanation and the domain name owner may have perfectly legitimate plans to have a website in the future. If the domain takes you to a functioning website that is comprised primarily of advertisements for products or services related to your trademark, you may also have a case of cybersquatting. For example, if your company is well-known for providing audio-visual services and the website you encounter is packed with ads for other company's audio-visual services, the likelihood is very strong that the site is operated by a cybersquatter who is trading off your company's popularity to sell Google ads to your competitors. If the domain name takes you to a website that appears to be functional, has a reasonable relation to the domain name, but does not compete with your products or services, you probably aren't looking at a case of cybersquatting. For example, if your trademark is "Moby Dick" for fine art dealing with whaling, and the website you encounter is for road cleaning machines, you do not have a case of cybersquatting. You may, under certain circumstances, have a case of trademark infringement.

Contact the domain name registrant. Before jumping to any conclusions, contact the domain name registrant. To find the name and address of a domain name owner, you can use the "WHOIS Lookup" . Find out whether there is a reasonable explanation for the use of the domain name, or if the registrant is willing to sell you the name at a price you are willing to pay. Pay, if it makes sense. Sometimes, paying the cybersquatter is the best choice. It may cheaper and quicker than filing a lawsuit or initiating an arbitration hearing.

Domain Names in India It is a general practice where companies desire to obtain such domain names which can be easily identified with their established trademarks. This helps the public to identify the company as there is no physical contact between the two of them. Domain names and trademarks are connected with each other. If a company or an individual register a domain name which is similar to or identical to someone elses trademark or domain name and then tries to sell the same for a profit. This is known as Cybersquatting

Cybersquatting in the United States

The first cybersquatting case arose in 1994 in the United States and cases have multiplied ever since in almost the whole World. In one of the cases, a US court found that the offer to sell a domain name in the US was use in commerce and, therefore, constituted trademark use; thus the court found that such an offer to sell a domain name to the owner of an identical or similar trademark was a trademark infringement. In the US, cybersquatting was practised immensely by one Dennis Toeppen, who registered a host of well-known trademarks as domain names and who has been unsuccessful in defending his rights to them when sued by the trademark owners. The two important cases which can be considered pivotal in the development of cybersquatting case law decisions in the US are Intermatic v. Toeppen 947 F. Supp. 1227 (N.D. Ill. 1996) where the court gave a decision in the favour of the plaintiff which owned a federal trademark registration for Intermatic. The Court observed that the respondent, Mr Toeppens conduct caused trademark dilution since the registration of the domain name intermatic.com lessened the capacity of Intermatic to identify and distinguish its goods and services on the internet. Another reason given by the court was that the use of Intermatic name on the respondents web page diluted the value of the mark. The second case was Panavision v Toeppen 141 F.3d 1316 (1998), where again the court ruled in favour of the plaintiff. In this case it was Panavision which had filed a case against Toeppen. The respondent Toeppen had registered domain names with

names panavision.com andpanaflex.com. These two cases also give an insight as to how vulnerable Domain names are and how trademark holders need to be careful from these modern day cyber extortionists (cybersquatters). These two judgments have played an important role in the drafting of the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act. It was enacted to specifically target trademark infringements in cyberspace. In the year 2000 another well known cybersquatter John

Zuccarini lost two suits under the newly enacted Anti Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA). The two federal courts ordered him to pay huge amount of statutory damages amounting to US $ $500,000 plus attorneys fees. Maruti Udyog, Indias largest automaker had filed a case in 2006 (Maruti.com et al. v. Maruti Udyog Ltd. et al., U.S. Dist. Ct. No. L-03-1478) against Rao Tella who was deemed a cybersquatter three times by WIPO. In this case the defendant had registered a domain name www.maruti.com.The US court held that since Maruti does not manufacture or sell cars in the United States, therefore the ACPA would not be applicable. Though the WIPO arbitration panel had given an order in favour of Maruti Udyog , it was not binding on the US district court. In September 2007 Microsoft filed three suits: - #1: Microsoft Corporation v. Peppler et al, #2: Microsoft Corporation v. Kovyrin et al, #3: Microsoft Corporation v. Cody. All these three cases were related to cybersquatting(decisions of the courts are not yet out). In fact the year 2007 was quite a busy year for Microsoft since four other suits were filed in the earlier part of the year, all related to cybersquatting. Cybersquatting has been a serious issue in the United States over the years. The US has the highest number of cybersquatting suits so far and every year the numbers are rising. Only time will tell as to when this monster on the internet would be routed out completely.

Cybersquatting in India As on date, domain names are not defined under any Indian law. Section 2(z) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, defines trademarks as marks capable of being represented graphically, distinguishing goods or services of one person from those of others. Mark is defined to include a name and any abbreviation thereof. The Act has a wide definition for services extending the ambit in relation to business of any commercial or industrial activity. The short point which the Court had to decide is whether a domain name has the characteristics of a trade or service which is available to potential users of the internet. The concept of a domain name is new to Indian legal thinking. As such, a domain name is nothing but the address of a website, easily identifiable and user friendly, to enable consumers to connect to the internet. There is an organization, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), which is an international registration authority with limited dispute resolution powers. However, an ICANN registration does not confer any intellectual property rights9. Indias top level domain is .in. The sunrise period for the .in domains was from 1st January, 2005 to 21st January, 2005. During this period owners of registered Indian trademarks or service marks were given an opportunity to apply for .in domains.the booking was opened to the public from 16th February, 2005. INRegistry is the official .in registry. INRegisty is operated under the authority of NIXI (National Internet eXchange of India). NIXI is a non-profitable company registered under section 25 of the Indian Companies Act. NIXI has been set up to facilitate improvement Internet services in India. The disputes relating to .in domain name are resolved in accordance with the . INDispute Resolution Policy (INDRP) AND THE INDPR Rules of Procedure. THE .in Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (INDRP) set out the terms and conditions to resolve a dispute between the Registrant and the Complainant, arising out of the registration and use of an .in internet Domain Name10.

A complaint can be filed with the .IN Registry on the following ground: 1. The Registrants domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a name, trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights, 2. 3. The Registrant has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of domain name. The Registrants domain name has been registered or is being used in bad faith. Companies in India have faced the brunt of cybersquatting in the recent past. Besides, the courts in India have been extremely vigilant in protecting the trademark interest of the domain owners who have suffered from cybersquatters. Companies in India have also faced the brunt of cybersquatting in the recent past. Besides, the courts in India have been extremely vigilant in protecting the trademark interest of the domain owners who have suffered from cybersquatters. The first case in India with regard to cybersquatting was Yahoo Inc. V. Aakash Arora & Anr., where the defendant launched a website nearly identical to the plaintiffs renowned website and also provided similar services. Here the court ruled in favour of trademark rights of U.S. based Yahoo. Inc (the Plaintiff) and against the defendant, that had registered itself as YahooIndia.com. The Court observed, it was an effort to trade on the fame of yahoos trademark. A domain name registrant does not obtain any legal right to use that particular domain name simply because he has registered the domain name, he could still be liable for trademark infringement. The Bombay High Court in Rediff Communication v. Cyberbooth & Anr 2000 PTC 209 observed that the value and importance of a domain name is like a corporate asset of a company. In this case the defendant had registered a domain name radiff.com which was similar to rediff.com. The court gave a decision in favour of the plaintiff. In another case the defendant registered a number of domain names bearing the name Tata. It was held by the court that domain names are not only addresses but trademarks of companies and that they are equally important. (Tata Sons Ltd v. Monu Kasuri & others 2001 PTC 432)

In a case which was taken up by the WIPO administrative panel where SBI Card and Payment Services Private Limited (a joint venture between GE Capital Services, the largest issuer of private label credit cards in the world, and the State Bank of India (SBI), the largest Indian bank) filed a case against an Australian entity on cybersquatting. Domain Active Pty Limited which was incorporated in Australia had registered a domain name

www.sbicards.com. The administrative panel held that domain name registered by the Australian entity was in bad faith and it could have attracted attention from the public because of its affiliation to SBI Cards products and services. In Bennett Coleman & Co Ltd. v. Steven S Lalwani and Bennett Coleman & Co Ltd. v. Long Distance Telephone Company (Cases No D2000-0014 and 2000-0015, WIPO), the arbitration panel gave a decision in favour of the plaintiff. In this to the respondent had registered domain names www.theeconomictimes.com and the www.timesofindia.com with network solutions of the United States. These two names are similar to the names of the Plaintiffs websites www.economictimes.com and www.timesoftimes.com. Another important fact was that the respondents websites using the domain names in contention redirect the users to a different website www.indiaheadlines.com which provided India related news.

In Satyam Infoway Ltd. v Sifynet Solutions 2004 (6) SCC 145, the Respondent had registered domain names www.siffynet.com and www.siffynet.net which were similar to the Plaintiffs domain name www.sifynet.com. Satyam (Plaintiff) had an image in the market and had registered the name Sifynet and various other names with ICANN and WIPO. The word Sify was first coined by the plaintiff using elements from its corporate name Satyam Infoway and had a very wide reputation and goodwill in the market. The Supreme Court held that domain names are business identifiers, serving to identify and distinguish the business itself or its goods and services and to specify its corresponding online location. The court also observed that domain name has all the characteristics of a trademark and an action of Passing off can be found where domain names are involved. The decision was in favour of the plaintiff.

Passing off action is where the defendant is restrained from using the name of the complainant to pass off the goods or services to the public as that of the complainant. It is an action to preserve the goodwill of the complainant and also to safeguard the public. In India cybersquatting cases are decided through the principle of Passing off. India does not have a law for prohibition of cybersquatting. Therefore, courts interpret the principle of Passing off with regard to domain names.

HARMFUL EFFECTS OF CYBERSQUATTING Trademark owners should not underestimate the harmful effects that cybersquatting has on their business and on the goodwill associated with their trademarks. Cybersquatters hope that trademark owners will simply ignore their misconduct as a minor problem. In reality, however, the problem is much more severe.

Cybersquatters count on Internet users going to their websites by mistake. Unfortunately, this is not a rare occurrence. A cybersquatted domain name can easily attract in excess of 10,000 visitors a month. And these are 10,000 people who intended to go to the legitimate website, but ended up at the cybersquatters website instead. The cybersquatted website presents these 10,000 people with advertisements, typically for competitors of the legitimate trademark owner. As a single example, the cybersquatted website www.Macyss.coma clear infringement on the department store chain Macysdisplays ads for Victorias Secret, Sears, and Ann Taylor.

Nor should trademark owners count on Internet users to re-enter the correct domain name once they have arrived at a cybersquatted website. The fact that a cybersquatter retains a domain name, in of itself demonstrates that consumers are not only visiting the cybersquatted website, but are also clicking on the advertisements. Cybersquatters buy domain names because they are profitable. If users are not consistently clicking on the advertisements, the cybersquatter will drop the domain name from its portfolio.

Moreover, data suggests that users become frustrated with the trademark owner when the user lands on a cybersquatted website. Users expect trademark owners to police the cybersquatting of their trademarks, to acquire domain names containing common variations of their trademarks, and to adopt easy-to-remember domain names. Users become frustrated when trademark owners have not followed these steps. The fact that a user has arrived at a

cybersquatted website indicates that the trademark holder has not undertaken these efforts and does not respect the users business.

Finally, trademark owners must worry about the effects of cybersquatting on the value of their trademarks. A failure to police such misuse can result in the abandonment of the claim against the cybersquatter, and even the abandonment of trademark rights generally. As such, trademark holders should not downplay the serious harmful effects of allowing cybersquatters to misuse their trademarks. Rather, trademark holders should actively police potential cybersquatting and take corrective action when such misuse is discovered.

CLASS ACTION AFAINST CYBERSQUATTERS While the idea of a class action against cybersquatters has not been tested, legal authorities indicate that such an action may prove viable. A class action is a lawsuit that is brought by a small number of plaintiffs (representative plaintiffs) on behalf of larger group (the class). Thus, for example, a single trademark holder could theoretically bring a lawsuit against a cybersquatter on behalf of both itself and other trademark holders who have been injured by the cybersquatters misconduct. A class action may be an effective tool against a cybersquatter because it threatens the cybersquatter with liability for numerous lawsuits within a single legal proceeding.

Class actions are possible where: 1) the class is so numerous as to make separate lawsuits impractical, 2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class, 3) the claims and defenses of the representative plaintiff is typical of the claims and defenses of the class, and 4) the representative plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. In the context of cybersquatting, it is quite possible that trademark holders would satisfy these standards. Specifically, a cybersquatter may have infringed upon the rights of a class of trademark holders by registering numerous domain names infringing on their trademarks. Unlike a traditional anti-cybersquatting action, with a class action, the cybersquatter could be forced to turn over a major portion of its domain portfolio, as well as potentially pay significant damages.

In the same vein, legal authorities have postulated that a class action may be possible where the class is composed of consumers rather than trademark holders. Under this conception of the class action, a single consumer could bring a lawsuit on behalf of other consumers who have been mistakenly led to the cybersquatted website. Again, the benefit of such a class action is that the cybersquatter will face potential liability for its misconduct as to all consumers, and not merely to the representative plaintiff.

While the cybersquatting class action remains a new concept, attorneys who are experienced in anti-cybersquatting law have expressed a vigorous interest in pursuing these claims.

CELEBRITY DOMAIN NAME ACTIONS

Jason

Bateman:

Actor

Jason

Bateman

recovered

the

domain

name

www.jasonbateman.com through a UDRP arbitration on January 9, 2008. The panel found that Jason Bateman had acquired rights to the JASON BATEMAN mark through his motion picture and television career. (NAF Claim No:

FA0711001114949)

Michael Bloomberg: Financier and politician Michael Bloomberg was unable to recover the domain name www.michaelbloombergsucks.com in a UDRP action. The UDRP panel found that Bloomberg had failed to show bad faith when the disputed domain was being used in connection with a free speech website. (NAF Claim No: FA0104000097077)

Gisele Bundchen: Supermodel Gisele Bundchen recovered the domain name www.giselebundchen.com through a UDRP action. The panel found that Gisele had used the GISELE BUNDCHEN mark in connection with her extensive modeling career since the mid-1990s and had gained trademark rights accordingly. (NAF Claim No: FA0812001237167)

George Hamilton: Television and film actor and director George Hamilton recovered the domain name www.georgehamilton.com through a UDRP action. The panel found that Hamilton had used the GEORGE HAMILTON mark in connection with his extensive film and television acting and directing careerand had gained trademark rights accordingly. (NAF Claim No: FA0904001259771)

Kate Hudson: Film actress Kate Hudson, daughter of famed actress Goldie Hawn, recovered the domain name www.katehudson.com through a UDRP action. The panel found that Hudson had established common law trademark rights in the KATE HUDSON mark through her long and continuous use of the mark. (NAF Claim No: FA0910001290319)

Paul McCartney: Renowned singer Paul McCartney recovered the domain names www.paul-mccartney.com, www.paul-mccartney.net and www.sirpaulmccartney.com in UDRP actions. The UDRP panel found that McCartney was the exclusive owner of the trademark rights to the mark SIR PAUL MCCARTNEY and was one of the most well-known and recognizable celebrities in the world. (NAF Claim No: FA0104000097086)

Jerry Seinfeld: On April 22, 2008 comedian Jerry Seinfeld filed a UDRP action to recover the domain name www.jerryseinfeld.com. While the UDRP action was withdrawn, the parties evidently reached some sort of settlement because the domain name is now registered to Seinfeld's management company.

Kevin Spacey: Film and stage actor Kevin Spacey was able to recover the domain name www.kevinspacey.com from notorious cybersquatter John Zuccarini. The panel found that Kevin Spacey had long-standing common law trademark rights in his name, which had acquired secondary meaning. (NAF Claim No: FA0103000096937)

Stevie Wonder: Stevland Morris a/k/a Stevie Wonder was successful in a domain name action to reocver www.steviewonder.com based on his United States and foreign registered rights in the STEVIE WONDER trademark. (NAF Claim No: FA0504000453986)

Tiger Woods: Tiger Woods succeeded in recovering the domain name www.tigerwoodslifestyle.com based on his United States registered trademark TIGER WOODS. (NAF Claim No: FA0902001245906)

Julia Roberts retrieves her domain name The complaint was filed against Russell Boyd, a New Jersey entrepreneur, who had registered the domain name juliaroberts.com. WIPOs arbitration panel ruled she had common law trade mark rights in her name, and that Boyd had no rights or legitimate interest in the domain name and registered it in bad faith, having placed the name for sale (with other famous names he had registered) on the eBay.com web site. The panel has ordered Boyd to transfer the name to Julia Roberts within 45 days. He has 10 days to challenge the decision. He has made a plea on the web site at juliaroberts.com for a lawyer to offer his or her services free of charge to help him fight the decision. He argues that Roberts did not contact him to request the transfer of the name before taking action before WIPO. Boyd said in his written pleadings in response to the complaint that he had a sincere interest in the actor, and said that if Julia had picked up a phone and said, Hi Russ, can we talk about the domain name juliaroberts.com? she would own it by now. He then concluded, But as I mentioned at the beginning of this response, I still think Julia is nifty crazy wacko cool. Last month, British author Jeanette Winterson won back the domain for her name from a cybersquatter. The case established that, in cases before WIPO, legal rights in a trade mark did not require that the trade mark be registered.

Eminem wins cybersquatting case US rapper Eminem today won a cybersquatting ruling against a British website selling mobile phone ringtones, preventing it from using his name, image and music. The UN's World Intellectual Property Organisation, created to "promote the use and protection of works of the human spirit", ruled in favour of the Grammy award-winning musician in his complaint against eminemmobile.com, whose domain name was registered by UK company Visitair Ltd a year ago. WIPO-appointed arbitrator Nelson Landry ruled that the title had been registered in an effort to profit from a famous name - a practice known as cybersquatting. The decision means that

the domain name will pass to Eminem, whose real name is Marshall Mathers III, within ten days provided no court case is launched to challenge it. The site, which published Eminem's trademark logo, sold ringtones of his hit songs, including Stan and The Real Slim Shady, and picture messages using his image. The Detroit musician was the first rapper to use the WIPO's high-speed, low-cost method of addressing such complaints. Other pop stars, including Robbie Williams and Madonna, have won similar verdicts. Earlier this year, he launched a legal action against the Apple computer company, claiming that it had used his song Lose Yourself for a television advertisement without permission.

SPORTY FARM LLC V. SPORTSMANS MARKET, INC (2000) [11]

Facts. Sportsmans Market is a mail order catalog company in the pilot and aviation consumer market. They registered the trademark sporty that they use to identify its products and catalogs. Omega is another mail order catalog company but sell products in the scientific instruments consumer market. Omega registered the domain namesportys.com, even though they were well aware of the sportys trademark. Soon after registering the domain name, Omega formed the company Sportys Farm, a company that grows and sells Christmas trees, and sold the domain names rights. Sportys Farm then began using the domain name sportys.com to advertise its Christmas trees.

Legal Issue. Did Sportys Farm violate the ACPA when registering the domain name sportys.com?

Opinion. Yes, Sportys Farm did violate the ACPA. Since sportys is both a distinctive and famous mark, it is entitled to ACPAs protections. Also, Sportys Farm acted in bad faith intent to profit since they did not have any intellectual property rights when they registered the domain name. Also, Omega had future plans of entering the pilot and aviation consumer market, which would make them direct competition to Sportsmans Market. Omega was

clearly aware that sportys was a strong mark of the products. Therefore, the court concluded that Omega registered the domain name for the primary purpose of keeping Sportsmans Market from using it. When Omega created a new business, they were protecting themselves from an infringement case since a mail order catalog company and a company that sells Christmas trees is in two completely different markets.

VIRTUAL WORKS, INC V. VOLKSWAGEN OF AMERICA, INC. (2001) [12]

Facts. Virtual Works, Inc registered the domain name vw.net in 1996. When they first registered the domain name, Virtual Works thought to offer to sell the domain name to Volkswagen if they were willing to pay a lot of money. But instead, Virtual Works used the domain name for two years for their ISP business. Then, in 1998, Volkswagen expressed an interest in purchasing the rights to vw.net. Virtual Works told Volkswagen they could purchase the rights to vw.net, but if they didnt within 24 hours, they were going to sell the rights to the highest bidder. Volkswagen argued that Virtual Works registering the domain name was an act of cyber squatting under the ACPA because their primary purpose of registering vw.net was to make a profit by selling it to Volkswagen.

Legal Issue. Did Virtual Works violate the ACPA when registering the domain name vw.net?

Opinion. The court concluded that Virtual Works violated the ACPA and acted in bad faith intent to profit when they registered the domain name vw.net. When Virtual Works registered the domain name, they knew about the famousness of the VW mark, the similarity of vw.net to the VW mark, and that vwi.org and vwi.net were both available domain names when vw.net was registered. Also, when Virtual Works registered the domain name, they

diluted and infringed upon the VW mark. Therefore, Virtual Works was forced to hand over the rights to vw.net to Volkswagen.

CHATAM INTERNATIONAL, INC. v. BODUM INC. (2001) [13]

Facts. Chatam International sells liquor and food products. In 1977, they registered the trademark Chambord Liqueur Royale, but did not affirm a claim to the individual word Chambord. Then, in the 1980s, Chatam International registered the mark Chambord for liquor, milk chocolate, fruit preservatives, and cake. Bodum Inc is a company that sells coffee makers. In 1996, an affiliate company of Bodum registered the domain name Chambord.com. The website featured advertisements of their coffee maker products and had a link to the Bodum.com website. Chatam International argued that Bodum violated the ACPA by registering the domain name Bodum.com

Legal Issue. Did Bodum, Inc violate the ACPA when registering the domain nameChambord.com?

Opinion. No, they did not violate the ACPA because Bodum has a valid trademark of the name Chambord for its coffee makers and have the right to use the mark for marketing its coffee and tea maker products. The court concluded that no evidence existed showing that they registered the domain name to confuse customers or to hurt the Chatams liquor and food products business. Although both companies have a trademark with the word Chambord, they are not automatically entitled to the domain name of that mark. Also, Bodum did not act in bad faith since they were simply using their trademark for the sale of its coffee makers.

MATTEL, INC v. ADVENTURE APPAREL (2001) [14]

Facts. Mattel is the worlds largest toy manufacturer and sells the Barbie doll, one of the most popular toys. Mattel has many registered trademarks on different Barbie related marks. Adventure Apparel registered two domain

names; barbiesbeachwear.com andbarbiesclothing.com. When a user went to either of these websites, they were automatically redirected to adventureapparel.com.

Legal Issue. Did Adventure Apparel violate the ACPA when registering the domain names barbiesbeachwear.com and barbiesclothing.com. The court concluded that the domain names must be terminated and Adventure Apparel is to pay Mattel $2000 in statutory damages.

Opinion. Yes Adventure Apparel did violate the ACPA. Adventure Apparel was forced to either terminate the domain name or give it to Mattel. They also had to pay Mattel $1000 for each domain name they had. Since the websites did not receive a lot of hits, they only had to pay the minimum fine.

SHIELDS V ZUCCARINI (2001) [15]

Facts. Shields is a graphic artist whose work is known under the name Joe Cartoon and The Joe Cartoon Co. Shields has been marketing and licensing his cartoons for display on many items for years. In 1997, Shields registered the domain name joecartoon.com, where

users can download his cartoons and purchase Joe Cartoon merchandise.

By

1998, joecartoon.com was averaging over 700,000 hits per month. In 1999, Zuccarini registered five domain names that were variations of joecartoon.com. When users typed in one of the misspellings, they were trapped into sites full of advertisements. Every time a user entered one of the domain names, Zuccarini received money from advertisers. In December of 1999, Shields sent cease and desist letters to Zuccarini and later sued him for infringement. In return Zuccarini changed the sites and posted protests

against joecartoon.com.

Legal Issue. Did Zuccarini violate the ACPA when registering five domain names that were variations of the spelling of joecartoon.com?

Opinion. Yes, Zuccarini did violate the ACPA. The court concluded that Joe Cartoon is a distinctive and famous mark, because its use is connected with goods and services, and its goods are sold nationwide. Since the mark is distinctive and famous, it is able to be protected. They stated that the domain names Zuccarini registered are confusingly similar and Zuccarini acted in a bad faith with intent to profit from the mark. The court also found evidence of other domain names Zuccarini had registered that were variations of other popular products and website names, such as sportillustrated.com. Therefore, Zuccarini was required to give the rights to the domain names to Shields and was prohibited from creating new domain names similar to the Joe Cartoon mark.

THE BIG BUSINESS OF SELLING DOMAIN NAMES Domain names are big business. For the past several years, domain names, the real estate of the Internet, have generated substantial returns for savvy investors, who often refer to themselves as domainers.Prior to the rise of pay-per-click advertising, domain name speculators would acquire desirable or trademarked domain names and then simply sit on them, hoping that they could sell them later on for a profit.

Today, a domain name holder can display pay-per-click advertising on a website, and sitback and let the money roll in while Internet users click on those ads. A single domain name can bring in hundreds of dollars a day, and many domain name holders have thousands or even millions of domain names.

The ability of a domain name to generate money through pay-per-click advertising depends on the likelihood that users will type in that domain name. As such, a domain that is a common word or phrase, or which incorporates a well known trademark, can draw in a constant stream of Internet users. In order to make money from a domain name, only a fraction of the Internet users who type in a domain name need to click on an ad. Each click can bring in anywhere from a few cents to a few dollars.

As a result of this business model, the value of desirable domain names has skyrocketed. Domain names can routinely fetch five or six figures. And in 2007, the domain name porn.com, reportedly sold for $9.5 million. The following domain names also reportedly fetched over a million dollars: business.com, asseenontv.com, altavista.com, wine.com, creditcards.com, and autos.com.

An entire secondary industry has developed around the buying and selling of domain names, including a vibrant online auction process for domain names. Several companies now offer appraisal services for domain names; the appraisal can cost anywhere from $10 to $100. Companies like Sedo and SnapNames hold domain name auctions, and serve as conduits for the sale of domain names, and enjoy a hefty commission for their assistance. Domaining is big business, and cybersquatting is not a petty crime. Rather, cybersquatting can involve substantial money and serious legal claims. Accordingly, trademark owners must be proactive in policing the misuse of their trademarks by cybersquatters. The failure to do so could result in substantial losses, as the above numbers reveal

DOMAIN NAME TAX AND ACCOUNTING ISSUES

Because it has now become common to spend five or six figures to acquire a valuable domain name, certain tax issues have reared their head. Unfortunately, these tax questions are not always so easily answered. For example questions arise as to whether income generated from a domain name should be treated as capital gains or ordinary income? Likewise, if, and how, does one amortize the expense of acquiring a domain name? And does a domain name depreciate in value over time?

Those who invest in, and generate income from domain names, should contact qualified tax professionals with experience in Internet law, to assess their tax consequences.

FIRST CYBERSQUATTING CASE (WORD WRESTLING FEDERATION CASE):

The first cybersquatting case under the WIPO was decided on January 14, 2000. The US based World Wrestling Federation (WWF) brought a suit against a California resident who registered the domain name worldwrestlingfederation.com and offered to sell it to WWF at a huge dividend a few days later. The WWF alleged that the domain name in question was registered in bad faith by the registrant in violation of WWFs trademark. It was held that the domain name registered by the respondent was identical or confusingly similar to the trademark of WWF and the respondent had no legitimate rights or interests in

the domain name. Therefore the respondent was ordered to transfer the registration of the domain name to the complainant, WWF.

Kotak Mahindra Bank has won a cybersquatting case at the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) against a South Korea-based person, who was using the name 'Kotak' in an internet domain. The ruling came after the private sector lender filed a complaint before the Geneva-based WIPO on July 16 this year. BSE | NSEPrice

Y G Jo of Seoul was using the domain name 'kotakbank.com' about which the bank contended that the name is confusingly similar to its brand 'Kotak' and the website name has been registered in bad faith. WIPO, a part of the United Nations, asked the Seoul-based person to transfer disputed internet site to Kotak Mahindra Bank. Cybersquatting is an illegal activity for buying and officially recording an address on the internet that is the name of an existing company or a well-known person, with the intention of selling it to the owner in order to make money. WIPO's Arbitration and Mediation Centre found the domain name was chosen and employed precisely for its potential commercial value in misleading internet users familiar with the complainant's well-known and arbitrary Kotak marks. The bank holds a trademark registration for Kotak that was registered in the country on October 28, 2003. WIPO is a specialised agency for developing a balanced and accessible international system in the field of intellectual property rights.

Tata says 'ta-ta' to cybersquatters

With the Tata Group going global, it appears that the company is pulling out all stops to protect itself from trademark infringement by cyber squatters. Cybersquatting is the act of registering a popular Internet address, usually the name of a well-known company, with the intent of selling the name to its rightful owner for a high price. Tata Sons senior vicepresident and finance and co. secretary, Mr F.N. Subedar, said, "After a brief lull, we were once again exposed to the menace of cyber squatting.

Prompt action at appropriate judicial forums have thwarted the attempts of the cyber squatters to usurp the internationally reputed well known Tata mark and made available these two domain names for our businesses, at the same time preventing gullible public from being misled by unauthorised use of our mark." The first of the two cases that Mr Subedar was referring to, took place in July this year when the Tata Group announced the possibility of a change in the corporate name of Tata Group's DTH Venture.

As soon as the announcement had been made, a cyber squatter, MIC/Syed Hussein, registered the domain name "tatasky.com" apparently for resale. Tata Sons Ltd, filed a complaint with the World Intellectual Property Organisation in Geneva. Twitter Targets Owner Of Twiter.com, Files Cybersquatting Complaint

Twitter has taken action against the owner of the domain name Twiter.com (note the single t in the middle), 7 years after the domain was registered. The social network has filed a cybersquatting complaint against the owner of the domain. If you visit Twiter.com, you will be redirected to a page that claims to offer a high-value prize such as a Macbook, iPhone or iPad for taking part in a contest. Web pages such as these which are often designed to look exactly like the original brand website try to get you to sign up to premium-rate SMS services as part of the alleged contest. Twitter has filed a complaint with the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) using the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP), a policy that was created by Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) to help crack down on

cybersquatting. ICANN is the organization which is responsible for the management of toplevel domain name space. Twitter will have to prove that Twiter.com was registered in bad faith. Since Twiter.com was registered in 2004 and Twitter was launched in 2006, the social network might have a tough battle if it is to succeed in its complaint. The UDRP tends to rule that websites could not have been registered in baid faith if the trademark did not exist. However, Twitter still appears to have a case, according to The Register. Aside from the fact that the contest Web page resembles the design of Twitters website, the Twiter.com domain appears to have changed owners several times most recently in April. When the ownership of a domain is transferred, WIPO advises its members that the domain should be treated as a new registration. This might indicate why Twitter waited so long to file a complaint against Twiter.com. Big brands have to contend with cybersquatters on a regular basis. These cybersquatters aim to cash in by having a domain name that is either a variation of the brands name (like a typo or closely related word) or by including the actual name of the brand itself in the domain. As well as protecting the identity of the brand, companies take action against cybersquatters in order to protect their customers (or in Twitters case, its users) from scams. This is not the first time that social networks have taken action against cybersquatters. In March, Facebook took action to block the sales of 21 domain names that feature the term Facebook. Microsoft combats 'cybersquatting' Microsoft Corp. has launched a legal campaign against companies that register Web addresses designed to attract extra online traffic by incorporating common misspellings and trademarked terms. The company filed three lawsuits this week against alleged "cybersquatters" and "typosquatters," calling the actions the first steps in a broader initiative to combat the practice. Hundreds of domain names are cited in the suits, such as freewindowslive.com and msnblog.com.

In the past, cybersquatters would often try to extract money by selling the domains to the companies whose names and trademarks were being mimicked. But Microsoft says many cybersquatters are now making money by displaying ads to the people who visit the sites. "It's all about traffic," explained Aaron Kornblum, Microsoft's Internet safety enforcement attorney. "Domains that generate more traffic yield more pay-per-click revenue, and are inherently more valuable." Other companies have filed similar lawsuits in the past. Microsoft is basing its complaints in part on alleged trademark violations and the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, which prohibits people from profiting from domain names registered with the intent of capitalizing on trademark confusion. The anticybersquatting act allows for damages up to $100,000 per incident. One complaint was filed against Jason Cox, of Albuquerque, N.M.; Daniel Goggins, of Provo, Utah; and John Jonas, of Springville, Utah, doing business as Jonas and Goggins Studios LLC and Newtonarch LLC. Reached by phone Tuesday, Goggins said they were working with Microsoft to try to resolve the situation, which he described as an "accident." Goggins said the company specializes in Internet marketing. Although it registers domain names, he said, it isn't involved in cybersquatting. Goggins said the situation "should be resolved soon," and declined to comment further. The second suit was filed against Dan Brown, of Long Beach, Calif., doing business as Partner IV Holdings. He couldn't be reached for comment. Microsoft also filed cybersquatting complaints against 217 John Doe defendants, seeking to reveal their identities through the process of the lawsuits. Microsoft has been working with Tacoma company Internet Identity to find cybersquatters and phishers registering domain names that appear to incorporate Microsoft trademarks. The company's campaign also is building on the work of a team led by Microsoft researcher Yi-Min Wang, whose "Strider" project includes a tool called Strider URL Tracer for tracking down cases of typo-squatting.

Microsoft Expands Global Effort to Combat Cybersquatting March 13, 2007 Company initiates further enforcement actions in the United Kingdom and United States and reaches settlement with U.K.-based Dyslexic Domain Company Limited.

LONDON, and REDMOND, Wash. March 14, 2007 Microsoft Corp. today announced new legal actions against cybersquatters in the United Kingdom and the United States, which include expansion of a lawsuit filed in Seattle in August and the filing of a new federal lawsuit against the U.S. company Maltuzi LLC for trademark infringement. In addition to these new actions, Microsoft revealed it has settled a domain infringement settlement with the Dyslexic Domain Company Limited from the United Kingdom and two U.S. civil lawsuits filed against defendants in Salt Lake City and Los Angeles. Cybersquatters register Internet domain names (such as winowslivemessenger.com and www.micr0soft.co.uk) containing not only widely recognized trademarked names and brands but also misspelled variations of them, which often result in tricking unsuspecting computer users and illegally profiting from them through online ad networks. Screens filled with pay-per-click advertisements greet visitors to these Web sites, which can generate revenue for the registered domain owner and the online ad network. Microsoft has reclaimed more than 1,100 infringing domain names worldwide in the past six months with the help of Microsoft researchers led by YiMin Wang, who has played a major role in the companys efforts to combat cybersquatting. These sites confuse visitors who are trying to reach genuine company Web sites, which can negatively affect corporate brands and reputations as well as impair the end-users experience online, said Aaron Kornblum, senior attorney with Microsoft. With every ad hyperlink clicked, a registrant or ad network harvests cash at the trademark owners expense, while derailing legitimate efforts by computer users who are trying to go to a specific Web site. Microsoft is also investigating potential violations of intellectual property law in other nations. We hope that our stance and activity on this issue will help motivate and empower other companies whose brands are abused to take action, Kornblum said. U.S.: New and Amended Actions Microsoft has filed or amended four civil suits in the United States: Microsoft Corp. v. Maltuzi LLC, Case No. C07-1419 (N.D. California). Microsoft alleges that the California company has profited from domain names that infringe on Microsoft trademarks. Microsoft further alleges that Maltuzi is a large-scale domain taster that registers large blocks of domain names, some of which infringe on Microsofts intellectual property rights, that it either retains or drops. Microsoft Corp. v. Sule Garba, Darin Grabowski and Yi Ning, Case No. 06-1192RSM (W.D. Wash.). Microsoft has amended a civil lawsuit filed in August 2006 in federal district court in Seattle against the owners of 217 infringing domain names who masked their true registration information behind privacy protection shields. In the lawsuit, Microsoft originally named John Doe defendants 1 217 (a legal technique that permits further investigation to uncover actual identities), and has now successfully identified the owners of all 217 domains. Today, Microsoft is amending that complaint to name three defendants who collectively are alleged to have owned at least 135 infringing domain names. Microsoft Corp. v. John Does 154, Case No. 07-2-08568-8 SEA (King County Superior Court, Washington). Microsoft has filed a civil lawsuit in state court in Seattle against John Doe defendants 154 to unmask defendants hiding their identities. Microsoft Corp. v. John Does 1105, Case No. C06-1766JLR (W.D. Washington). In December 2006, Microsoft filed a civil lawsuit in federal district court in Seattle to identify defendants who have allegedly registered infringing domain names and parked them by associating them with online ad network monetization services. The case is pending. New and Settled Actions in the United Kingdom Microsoft has conducted five new legal actions in the U.K. against companies allegedly having registered domain names infringing on Microsofts trademark and other statutory and common-law rights. In addition to these actions, Microsoft reached a settlement with U.K.-based Dyslexic Domain Company Limited, which Microsoft alleged had registered more than 6,000 domains. In addition to a

monetary payment to Microsoft, Dyslexic Domain Company Limited agreed to other confidential settlement terms. U.S.: Civil Lawsuits in Utah and California Microsoft has also settled two federal civil lawsuits filed in August 2006 against five named defendants who allegedly profited from domain names that infringed on Microsoft trademarks: Microsoft Corp. v. Cox et al: Case No. 2:06cv00692 TS. Microsoft filed this case in Salt Lake City, alleging that the defendants and their businesses had registered 324 domain names targeting Microsoft. The settlement ends the litigation with a stipulated order for permanent injunction against all defendants, a $2 million judgment as to defendants Jason Cox of New Mexico and Newtonarch LLC, the Utah-based business of the remaining individual defendants, and other confidential terms. Microsoft Corp. v. Brown: Case No. cv06-5247R. Microsoft filed this case in Los Angeles, alleging that the defendant had registered 85 domain names targeting Microsoft. The settlement ends the litigation with a stipulated order for permanent injunction and a $1 million judgment as to defendant Dan Brown of California dba Partner IV Holdings, and other confidential terms.

Founded in 1975, Microsoft (Nasdaq MSFT) is the worldwide leader in software, services and solutions that help people and businesses realize their full potential.

CYBERSQUATTING AND E-Commerce The bane of companies, organizations, brand names, and celebrities, cybersquatting is the practice of registering the name of a company, trademark, brand, or person as a domain name for a Web site in hopes of misleading users to one's own site by using a well-known name. The toplevel domain (TLD), the highest level of the Uniform Resource Locator (URL) such as sitename.com or sitename.org , is the portion of the Web address that companies covet most. Companies generally prefer the URL that will be easiest to remember and thus more recognizable to the visitor. Cybersquatters attempt to beat the company, individual, or organization to the punch in registering that domain. Failing that, squatters may try closely related alternatives, such as adding a hyphen or a single letter to the domain name to lure inattentive users. At times cybersquatters have registered these names in hopes of selling them back to their namesakes at a handsome profit, but U.S. court rulings and new laws have curtailed these activities. Businesses fear that cybersquatting exploits and erodes their brand identities. The domain-name registration system doesn't prevent users from selecting a registered trademark as a domain name. In essence, if a particular name or variation of a name hasn't been registered already, almost anyone can register it for a small fee. Given the ease of acquiring names, the strategy of cybersquatters is to route traffic to their sites from unsuspecting followers of another brand or identity, thereby generating an audience for themselves. The most malicious form of cybersquatting

happens when squatters take a certain brand or identity and associate it with negative or offensive materials, for example, routing a children-related domain name to a pornographic Web site. Cybersquatters may have a variety of intentions. The most common goal is to hold the domain hostage, so to speak, and name a ransom price at which the squatter hopes to sell it to the company, trademark holder, organization, or individual. Cybersquatters also simply try to garner visitors to their Web sites by exploiting a popular name, either to expand the audience for their own message or product or to boost their advertising revenue. Relief from cybersquatting came with the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA), passed in 1999, which was designed specifically to curtail the registration of domain names that use others' trademarks or trade names. The law covers unregistered trademarks and individual names as well. ACPA applies to all TLDs, covering the three most common suffixes, known as generic top-level domain names (gTLDs), sttename.com ,sttename.net , and sttename.org , as well as all country-code top-level domain names (ccTLDs), such as .ca for Canada and.fr for France. Prior to ACPA, victims of cybersquatting had little recourse, and many ended up paying the exorbitant fees demanded by squatters to purchase their own names. Because cybersquatters can be prosecuted under ACPA, it has generally made cybersquatting less profitable, though it has hardly stamped out the practice. The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) is the official body charged with monitoring the allocation of domain names. In December 1999 ICANN unveiled a standard procedure for settling name disputes, the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP). ICANN's procedure determines the plausibility of the cyber-squatting claims using three tests. First, it verifies that the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark. Then, it determines whether the domain name owner maintains a legitimate interest in the name. Finally, ICANN judges whether or not the domain owner acted in bad faith. In addition to litigation, individuals, firms, and organizations have a number of strategies at their disposal to combat cybersquatting. The most common is to simply register, as quickly as possible, other similar domain names, such as those with and without hyphens or with commonly used initials. Many companies and individuals have even gone so far as to register or purchase the domain names of possible "gripe sites," also known as cyberbashers. Famously, during the 2000 U.S. presidential campaign the Web site www.GeorgeBushsucks.com routed curious visitors to the official George W. Bush campaign site. Chase Manhattan and other large

companies engaged in similar preemptive strikes against cyberbashers and squatters. However, since there can be dozens of possible domain-name variations that could fall victim to cybersquatting, the defense against cybersquatters may come down to a cost-benefit analysis. That is, the concerned entity must decide how many different names it should register in order to protect its identity, and determine at what point it begins to find diminishing returns. Most importantly, though, such strategies must be implemented quickly. Speed is the name of the game in cybersquatting, as cybersquatters are practiced in getting to domain names first.

E-BUSINESS SPECIAL REPORT

Is Cybersquatting Killing E-Business?

By Elizabeth Millard E-Commerce Times 06/02/03 4:00 AM PT

Certain kinds of software exist that monitor which domains have suddenly become available, then register them immediately if they are well known, WIPO spokesperson Francis Gurry told the E-Commerce Times.
When the mainstream first discovered the newly spun Web, a new breed of spider emerged: the cybersquatter, an individual or company that registered many domain names, most of them well-known brands, and resold them at high prices. With some asking prices hitting seven figures at the height of the dot-com boom, companies began to cry for justice. Fortunately, someone listened. Rigorous legislation and dramatic efforts by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) and the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) curbed much of the reviled practice, but did not stop cybersquatting completely. Although cybersquatters' numbers have diminished -- along with their profits -- domainname vultures are still in the wild, and companies that hope to maintain their good name on the Net must stay vigilant and organized to keep them at bay. What are some of the best

Ousting the Squatters There are so many registrars on the Web that it is small wonder ICANN keeps busy just making sure transactions are legitimate. In 1999, the organization instituted the Uniform

Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy, and that same year also saw the passage of the Anti-Cybersquatting Act. ICANN spokesperson Mary Hewitt told the E-Commerce Times that these initiatives helped slash the number of cybersquatters. However, they are not without problems. "The Anti-Cybersquatting Act is focused only in the United States," she said. "So, if you have a problem with someone in Korea who has registered your name, it's going to be very difficult to fight that." Defensive Blocks Register.com spokesperson Chris Patmore told the E-Commerce Times that large corporations in particular are targeted because they have so many brands that vigilance is required to keep them all properly registered. To stay ahead of cybersquatters, companies sometimes even register misspellings of their name or get creative, as when Verizon snapped up verizonsucks.com before it was claimed by someone with less than honorable intentions. "It's important to register defensively," Patmore said. "It's also crucial to register in places where a company wants to start trading, but also believes [it will] be at risk from cybersquatting, like in Japan, for example." Staying Up-to-Date Even if a company is not large, allowing domain name registrations to lapse is like sending out a beacon to attract cybersquatters, said Francis Gurry, a spokesperson for the WIPO. He told the E-Commerce Times that certain kinds of software exist that monitor which domains have suddenly become available, then register them immediately if they are well known. "There was a site in Texas devoted to providing information about family and friends of people in the Navy," he said. "It was navydallas.com, and as soon as it lapsed, it got snapped up by a porn site. Well, there are 80,000 people associated with that site, many of whom had bumper stickers with the URL on them." Navydallas.com is a common example of what can happen as soon as a lapse occurs. The solution, Gurry said, is as simple as it is obvious: Companies should stay on top of their domain name expiration dates and re-register immediately. If they do not do so, they could face expensive litigation that might or might not grant them their domain name back.

Second Chances Companies that do neglect to re-register still may have an opportunity to redeem their domain names without going to court. ICANN has introduced a grace period for deleted domains after fielding a tide of complaints from companies that got hit by cybersquatters. ICANN spokesperson Hewitt noted that the administrative costs for companies that want to take advantage of the grace period are continually being lowered. When the program started, it cost about US$100 for a company to snatch its name back. Now, the cost is $40, and it soon will fall to a paltry $6. "It provides a cushion," she said. "Most registrars will give you some warning about when the domain name will expire, but some will just throw it back into the abyss as soon as it expires. This is a way to have more time." She added, "The best thing, though, is just [not to] let it expire." Common Sense Defensive registering and vigilant monitoring of expiration dates may seem like obvious counters to cybersquatting, but some companies are still lax in applying these tactics to fend off the bad guys. As IDC analyst Jonathan Gaw told the E-Commerce Times, "Let's face it: If you have a cybersquatting problem, chances are you're just not paying attention." In the mid-1990s, the Internet gold-rush mentality gave rise to cybersquatters, but with legislation and dispute resolution in place, Gaw said, companies should have wised up by now. "Nowadays, if you're starting a new company or introducing a new product, you register the domain before you even announce the name," he said. "That's just part of business now." Law in india Cyber squatting has increased significantly as per a recent statement by World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO). This shows the importance of domain names in todays commercial and inter connected world.

Securing domain name protection in India is a very tedious and troublesome task as India has no domain name protection law as well as cyber squatting law. All cases of cyber squatting are dealt with under the trade mark act, 1999 of India. This is the main reason whydomain name dispute resolution services in India are provided by few selective players only.

Technology has also introduced a novel element to dispute resolution. Now alternative dispute resolution (ADR) services are supplemented by online dispute resolution (ODR) methods. Technology disputes involving fields like Cyber Law, Cyber Security, Cyber Forensics, Technology Transfer, Cyber Squatting etc require Domain Specific and Highly Specialised Techno Legal Acumen, says Praveen Dalal, Managing Partner Perry4Law a New Delhi based and exclusive Techno Legal IP and ICT Law Firm of India.

However, there are very few technology related dispute resolution providers and ODR service providers in India. For instance, Perry4Law through Perry4Law Techno Legal Base (PTLB) is the exclusive techno legal ADR and ODR service provider of India. Although ODR services are provided by a few others as well in India yet none of them, except Perry4Law and PLTB, provide techno legal ODR services in India.

These initiatives of Perry4Law and PTLB assume significance asdispute resolution of cross border technology transactions would be one of the emerging trends in international commercial arbitration in India. Further, cross border technology transactions and dispute resolution may take lots of shape and requirements. These technologies related dispute resolution services would also need techno legal expertise that very selective individuals and organisations possess. India can become a global hub for international commercial dispute resolution (ICDR) services. ICDR services can be provided for disputes arising out of contracts on sales of goods, distributorship, agency and intermediary contracts, construction, engineering and infrastructure contracts, intellectual property contracts, domain name dispute resolutions, joint venture agreements, maritime contracts, employment contracts, etc. The list is fast expanding as the world is moving away from the traditional litigation system. All we need to make India a hub for ADR and ODR is a conducive. Firstly, the ADR system of India needs reforms as it is in a really bad shape. Secondly, the arbitration infrastructure in India needs to be established. Thirdly, contemporary dispute resolution methods likeonline dispute resolution (ODR) and e-courts are missing in India. Even the national litigation policy of India (NLPI) failed to consider ODR and e-courts as effective methods of out of court dispute resolution. These issues must be resolved to make India a favourite destination for technology related dispute resolutions.

How the latest versions of Internet Explorer help protect against cybersquatting
Warnings. SmartScreen Filter is a feature of Internet Explorer that warns you about suspicious websites. For more information, seeSmartScreen Filter: frequently asked questions .

Smarter address bar. Internet Explorer shows you a website's true address by highlighting it in the address bar, which makes it easier for you to identify the sites you visit. The green address bar means that the site has completed a thorough documentation process and

verified current business licensing and incorporation paperwork. The padlock symbol in the address bar means that the website uses SSL (Secure Socket Layer) encryption, and the status bar shows additional website identification information to help you make sure you are on a valid website.

Favorites menu. To prevent a spelling error that takes you to a malicious site, add websites that you use often and add any financial websites you use to your Favorites list and then only access the sites through your Favorites menu.

Have your registered copyrights or trademarks been used unlawfully? Is someone using your good name in commerce for their benefit on the web? Or, are you looking to take down yet another scumbag cybersquatter? Scare em off with an effective cease and desist letter you have every right to do so! Understanding Cease and Desist Letters A Cease and Desist (called a C&D in short) is a notice that an intellectual property owner can send to cease all unlawful activity being performed against it. In more human terms, its

a legal letter you send to someone demanding that they stop doing what theyre doingor else. Of course, there can be two pretensions here: 1) You just want to scare the hell out of someone with a legal letter, and hope theyll stop. If not, then you just give up and call it a day. Mission failed. 2) You want to scare the hell out of someone with a legal letter, and follow up with your promise of pursuing legal action. Justifying the Sending of A Cease and Desist Who are the kinds of idiots that you can send a C&D to? Scammers, spammers, content thieves, cybersquatters, socialsquattersanyone who is using your registered copyright or trademark without your permission, in a way that causes confusion (other people might think the false representation of your trademark are valid, and have come from you or your company), uses your business name in commerce (someone posing as you, using your good name to make themselves money) or is doing anything else that is obviously tarnishing your company name or property. Note that I keep saying registered copyright or trademark. Technically, an un-registered copyright or trademark is still valid in the eyes of the law, it just has much less weight since it is subjective, difficult to prove, and has no legal backing like a registered version would. This is why I constantly urge people to register their business name properly. A Sample Cease and Desist Letter In terms of the Cease & Desist letter, youll want it to sound as frighteningly legal as possible. Heres the template I use: Dear [CompanyName Representative] [Mr./Ms. Whoever], Please be advised that I am writing on behalf of [My Company Name]. It has come to our attention that you are using the [state the registered trademark/copyright] mark, specifically found at: [give an exact URL of where the offense is taking place], is an infringement upon our registered US trademark, [State your 8-digit trademark ID number, or any other relevant number]. The rights to the [state the registered trademark/copyright] brand name are owned by [My Company Name], and this [trademark/copyright] was registered on [state the date it was registered].

The [state the registered trademark/copyright] mark is a widely known trademark for [whatever industry your mark has been trademarked/copyrighted under] that has been used in commerce since [state the date it first appeared in commerce]. My company has spent thousands of dollars advertising and promoting its brand name. This investment has generated widespread and substantial goodwill in the public acceptance for this trademark in the United States and worldwide. The unauthorized use of the [state the registered trademark/copyright] mark infringes on our trademark registration, constitutes dilution of our registered trademark and is creating commercial confusion. Please relinquish the [list the domain name or social networking account name] to myself, the trademark holder. (or, state that you would like something taken down, if this is not in regard to an offending domain name or username). Please advise me in writing no later than [input the date that is 30 days from today's date] that you have complied with this request. (this is optional): In the event you do not act in accordance with the aforementioned, [your company name] will pursue all legal remedies. Sincerely, [Your Name] [Your company name & all contact information] Who Should A Cease and Desist Letter Be Sent To? It depends on what event has happened. If youre trying to get back your exact company name as an account name on a major social networking site (Facebook, MySpace, Youtube, Twitter), the C&D letter should be sent to their legal department. These sites always have a help section where you can search for trademark violation and find a contact link specifically for those instances. These sites do not waste time in responding to legal issues, and you should expect a response rather quickly with further information as to what happens next. Some of these sites will tell you to take the issue directly to the account holder (i.e., the account holder of MySpace.com/YourCompanyName). This move is dead wrong and unprofessional on their part, as they are the site owner. However, there isnt much you can do beyond follow their instructions.

If youre looking to send a C&D to an offending website, someone who has stolen your images or logo, or someone who is posing as you on the internet send the letter directly to them by looking at their WHOIS information. If it is private or unavailable, you must contact their hosting provider through WHOIS, and send the C&D to them. They will most definitely respond to you. Another step you can take if the offenders WHOIS information is hidden is to contact their domain name provider and demand that that the information is revealed. This is yet another case where you will most likely receive a prompt response. Putting Your Money Where Your Mouth Is Sending anyone a legal threat should never be a whim. If youre going to threaten legal action, then most people (especially no-name content thieves working from their mothers basement) will probably just give up and do what you ask. Others might tell you to piss off, and those are the ones where youll have to decide if legal action is worth pursuing or not. It really depends on how damaging they are being to your company. In those cases, a real C&D from your lawyer on their official letterhead might be the next best step. Just be sure that youre willing to put out the money, commitment and headache(s) of pursuing legal action, which will most likely get drawn out over the course of years. What If the Offender is International? Youre pretty much screwed if the person offending your registered work is not in the same country as you. Unless you were able to afford the astronomical cost of registering an international trademark (which I doubt youve done), then youre pretty much defenseless. The best you can do, in most cases, is to file a DMCA complaint and hope that the bad content gets taken off of the search engines. In closing, a Cease and Desist letter is a good weapon you can use to combat content theft, or to simply make someone stop ripping off your intellectual property. Its a way to potentially get back that social networking site username someone socialsquatted from you, or that cybersquatted domain name thats profiting from the type-in traffic that was obviously intended for your company

Future of Cyber Squatting

The importance of cyber squatting to corporations has been growing since the creation of the ACPA and will continue to grow as time goes on. We predict that cyber squatting will be an issue involved in e-commerce law in the future although the complainant may shift from big businesses to smaller businesses based on recent court decisions. In addition, there are various amendments that could be made to the current cyber squatting acts in order to increase their effectiveness as well as fairness. These changes will need to occur as the Internet expands and online businesses continue to flourish. There are many current cases which challenge both the powerful individuals and businesses right to a domain name, as well as challenging the individuals right to hold the domain for personal use. Earlier this month, a case was tried in the U.S. Court of Appeals in regards to the use of the domain fallwell.com as a critical site to the preaching of televangelist Jerry Falwell. Jerry Falwell accused the owner of this site of infringing on trademarks and cyber squatting but his claims were rejected when the courts decided that the site could not be confused with Jerry Falwells official domain falwell.com due to differences in both appearance and content [20].

This case is a major victory for individuals who wish to criticize public figures or organizations through the use of the Internet. In the future, granted that the individuals who own and operate the domain have no intent to profit from its use, there is very slim chance that a court could find in favor of either a powerful individual or a large corporation. This lack of bad faith intent involved with the operation of a site is used to protect individuals from being bullied out of cyberspace by large businesses.

Bad Faith in the Future Bad faith has been used as a defense for many small businesses and has provided them with a layer of security when their use of the domain does not infringe upon the larger companys trademark. Non-profit use is one of the strongest defenses and its inclusion in the ACPA is one of the greatest strengths of the act. Many other aspects of the ACPA allow big

businesses to push smaller ones out of the Internet market and simply having larger exposure and a larger name has allowed them to bully others out of the e-commerce market [19].

The ability of large companies to force smaller ones to give up domain rights is being challenged by many court cases and the victories of some of these small businesses is paving the way for others in the future. These results are also being looked at in many states as they look to clarify and improve the cyber squatting laws. This is because as we stand now, the Internet may not be able to survive only on the acts which have been passed in the last few years. With the Internet rapidly expanding into new domains, such as .biz, .edu, .in, and many others, the chances of registering common domains increases greatly. Along with this, many individuals and companies are becoming more educated on the technical aspects of cyber squatting. This is only increasing the complicated nature of cases and making it harder for courts to come to a decision regarding the rightful ownership of a domain name.

Changes

Problems can be dealt with through the expansion of the acts that currently deal with cyber squatting. The ACPA, in conjunction with the ICANN, has power over the domain names that are registered and can influence the decisions made in regards to them. By enhancing the ACPA with more individual-friendly sanctions, the government can help to protect the rights of an individual to own and operate a site that may be common to a corporations trademark. In addition to this, the ICANN and other such organizations have the authority to sell the rights to a domain to anyone who pays for it, but also have gained the power to transfer these rights to another party if they deem fit. These decisions can be appealed and taken to court; however, a failure to promptly file an appeal with the domain registrar can lead to a loss in court no matter what arguments are brought about [20].

In order to prevent these organizations from unfairly dictating the law of the Internet, legislation must be passed in order to amend the ACPA in order to correct the flaws that have been found in recent court hearings. This will undoubtedly gather much opposition from large businesses and influential individuals who wish to protect their own rights without concerning the right of the common individual. These laws in the United States act to override the laws of foreign nations and also act to undermine the authority of international

efforts such as ICANN in order to avoid complex and costly international lawsuits. The ACPA has received much opposition and typically gains complaints including such grounds as legislative overkill, free speech concerns, and reverse domain hijacking. The future of the ACPA holds legal ramifications that will affect not only U.S. citizens, but also foreign citizens and businesses. This holds true in the case of the International Olympic Committee which has used the ACPA as a weapon in order to prevent the use of domains remotely associated with the Olympics [21].

CONCLUSION: The active involvement of WIPO in resolving disputes regarding domain names has played a vital role in evolving concrete principles in this field. It provides a streamlined, cost-effective and swift procedure to review the claims before it. Generally the cases are expected to be decided within 45 days after filing! The World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) saw a 20 per cent increase in the number of cybersquatting (abusive registration of trademarks as domain names) cases filed in 2005 as compared to 2004. In 2005, a total of 1,456 cybersquatting cases were filed with WIPO's Arbitration and Mediation Centre, according to a WIPO release. This is just one of the solutions to the many complexities concerning the Internet. Looking at the current situation prevailing in the world, it is certain that cybersquatting is a menace. It is a menace which has no boundaries. Cybersquatters have robbed businesses of their fortune. Looking from the Indian perspective cybersquatting has been prevalent since internet came to the subcontinent. The courts in India have decided many cases related to cybersquatting. It is the imperative for the parliament to enact a law which would deal with this menace. Cybersquatting has opened the eyes of governments across the world and has prompted them to look into this phenomenon in a serious manner. It is high time India and other countries come out with legislations to protect this virus from spreading. REFERENCES
http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/news/press/2007/mar07/03-13cybersquattingpr.aspx http://www.ecommercetimes.com/story/21638.html