National Law University Odisha, Cuttack

A PROJECT WORK ON COPYRIGHT AND ACCESS TO INFORMATION

TOPIC
ANALYSIS OF DOMAIN NAME INFRINGEMENT UNDER IPR LAWS

UNDER THE GUIDANCE OF:

MS. RUJITHA SHENOY

BA LLB
X SEMESTER

Submitted By:

PUNYASHLOK PANDA (2019/BALLB/079)

SHIBA PRASAD SARANGI (2019/BALLB/100)

 TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Introduction........................................................................................................................1

II. Meaning and History of cybersquatting.............................................................................2

III. Dispute Resolution Mechanisms.....................................................................................4

IV. Position in United states..................................................................................................9

V. Position in India...............................................................................................................11

VI. Conclusion.....................................................................................................................14
 I. INTRODUCTION

The internet has become an essential part of our lives, and domain names are crucial for
accessing websites and online services. However, the rise of the internet has also created new
possibilities for criminal activity, such as cybersquatting. Cybersquatting is the registration
and use of a domain name that is identical or similar to a trademark, service mark, company
name, or personal name with the intent to pr ofit from the goodwill of the trademark 0wner.
Cybersquatters may try to sell the domain name to the trademark 0wner for a profit, or they
may use the d0main name to create a website that infringes on the trademark owner's
intellectual property rights. Cybersquatting can have serious consequences for trademark
owners, such as damaging their reputation, confuse consumers, and divert traffic away from
their legitimate websites. Cybersquatting can also be costly for trademark owners to combat,
as they may need to file legal proceedings to recover their domain names. There are different
types of cybersquatting.

Trademark cybersquatting is the most common type of cybersquatting and it inv 0lves
registering a d0main name that is similar to a trademark. Typo cybersquatting involves
registering domain names that contain common typos of popular websites. There have been a
number of international efforts to harmonize laws against cybersquatting. The Anti
cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA) in the United States is one of the most
important pieces of legislation on this topic. The ACPA prohibits the registration, trafficking
in, or use of a d0main name with bad faith intent to profit from the goodwill of a trademark
belonging to someone else.1 The Uniform D0main-Name Dispute-Res0lution Policy (UDRP)
is another imp0rtant international effort to combat cybersquatting. The UDRP is a dispute
resolution procedure that allows trademark owners to file complaints against cyber squatters.

1
Consumer Protection Act 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d)(1)(A).

Page | 1
 II. MEANING AND HISTORY OF CYBERSQUATTING

The World Wide Web has revolutionized big industrial movements of the 19th century. The
Internet is mainly come to be utilised for commercial transactions, acquiring information and
social interaction among other things. Millions have benefited from the opportunities it has
provided and many more have suffered, especially in the realm of intellectual property, data
protection, and related areas. It is common knowledge that the Internet has become a very
impactful instrument in various domains such as creating jobs, curtail barriers to
communication, and truncate political and social boundaries. Undermining of intellectual
property rights and their rampant unauthorized use are a few of the obstacles that stand
between humanity and the realization of a digital utopia. Cybersquatting is a serious threat
that knows no bounds and is similar to trademark infringement. Cybersquatters register
d0main names that are identical or deceivingly similar to trademarks, with the motive of
benefiting from the reputation and g 00dwill associated with th0se trademarks.2 Domain
names can be compared to street addresses in the real world, as they allow users to easily
locate websites on the Internet.

D0main names c0rresp0nd to vari0us IP (Internet Protocol) numbers which c 0nnect various
c0mputers and enable direct network r0uting system to direct data to the correct addressee. In
other words, a d0main name is a “uniform source locator”. 3 The misuse and abuse of such
domain name leads to the crime of cybersquatting. Cybersquatting is the practice of
registering domain names that contain trademarks belonging to other people or organizations,
with the intention of profiting from the goodwill of those trademarks. Under US law,
cybersquatting is defined as "registering, trafficking in, or using a d 0main name with bad
faith intent to pr0fit from the g00dwill of a trademark belonging to s 0me0ne else.4 The m0st
c0mm0n way for c0nsumers to find what they are l00king for on the Internet is to type the
domain name of the brand or company they are looking for. This is because there is a natural
connection between trademarks and domain names. Some people have exploited this

2
Sangeetha Lakshmi V, ‘The Menace of Cybersquatting and available legal measures to mitigate abuse of
domain names’ (2022) 2(1) Indian Journal of Integrated Research in Law.
3
‘The Web Of Cybersquatting: Are Laws Needed To Clean Up The Web’ (Khurana & Khurana, 4 February
2022) <https://www.khuranaandkhurana.com/2022/02/04/the-web-of-cybersquatting-are-laws-needed-to-clean-
up-the-web/#:~:text=Uniform%20Resource%20Locator%20Hijacking%2C%20commonly,by
%20cybersquatters%20to%20make%20money> accessed 28 September 2023.
4
Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA) 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d).

Page | 2
connection by registering domain names that contain trademarks belonging to others and then
trying to sell th0se d0main names back to the 0wners of the trademarks.

In the early 1990s, one of the first recorded instances of cybersquatting occurred when a man
registered the domain names of several well-known brands before the companies themselves
had done so.5 He then demanded a ransom of $13,000 for each domain name. Before the
advent of the Internet in 1999, businesses did not recognize the need t 0 register their
trademarks as d0main names. As the Internet's importance grew, cyber squatters saw an
opportunity to profit by registering d0main names identical 0r similar to well-known
trademarks. D0main name registrars accept all applicati 0ns f0r d0main names unless that
exact identical name is in use. This means that cyber squatters can easily register domain
names that belong to other businesses. Once a cyber squatter has registered a d 0main name,
the c0mpany can no l0nger have their trademark as their d0main name. This can cause
problems for businesses, as cust0mers and clients may try to find them online using the
wrong domain name.

5
Sangeetha Lakshmi V, ‘The Menace of Cybersquatting and available legal measures to mitigate abuse of
domain names’ (2022) 2(1) Indian Journal of Integrated Research in Law.

Page | 3
 III. DISPUTE RESOLUTION MECHANISMS

I. ICANN

Domain names are classified into hierarchies. “The top level in hierarchy of a domain name is
the one which appears after the last dot (.) For e.g., in www.google. com, the top-level
domain name (TLDs) is "COM". "COM" is the most common and widely used domain name
which indicates that the domain name is owned by a commercial enterprise. Other TLDs may
include "org" for non-profit organizations, "net" for network and Internet related
organizations, "gov" for government organizations etc. these TLDs are called generic top
level domain names(gTLDs). Prior to 2000, there were only three gTLDs which were
available for registrants i.e. ".com", ".net" and ".org". In November 2000, after a long and
complex discussion, ICANN approved the much-awaited creation of seven new gTLDs.
However, any registry which wants to use these new gTLDs has to take approval of the
United States Department of Commerce, which is at present the authoritative body regarding
the allotment of new gTLDs.

Apart from this, there are several unique top level domain names as well which are used by
particular countries for e.g. "fr" for France and "in" for India etc and are called Country Top
level Domain Names (CTLDs). The area where the disputes usually arise regarding a domain
name is the second level domain name. A second level domain name is the one which is
placed to the exact left of the top-level domain name for e.g., in www.google.com "google" is
the second domain name. Such disputes arise as no two identical second level domain names
can exist under a same top level domain name. Anyone, who wants to register a particular
domain name in his or her name, shall apply for registration in the office of an ICANN-
approved domain name registry. At present, the disputes related to domain names are
addressed under the provisions of a UDRP (Unique Dispute Resolution Policy) of ICANN
(Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers). ICANN is a private body and the
authority which is responsible for implementation and enactment of internet related
parameters and the allotment of unique identities to users. The domain name registering
bodies operating in particular countries are registered with ICANN. ".IN" registry which acts
as a registering body in India is an example of this.

UDRP of ICANN is the model policy in resolving disputes related to e-commerce. The
UDRP was approved and implemented by the ICANN on 24th October, 1999. This action of

Page | 4
the ICANN was based mainly on the report of "Second Staff Report on Implementation
Documents for the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy". 6 The policy lays down conflict
resolution mechanism for resolving disputes that may arise between Registrars and the
domain name holders or registrants. Therefore, the whole policy uses the terms "you/your"
and "we/our" for the registrants and themselves respectively. The main purpose behind this
policy is to provide the domain name holders an alternate remedy apart from the courts for
settlement of disputes related to domain name infrignement and illegal transgressing etc. As
per ICANN'S policy it is a mandatory requirement for all the Registrars to keep a separate
provision in all their registration agreements which makes all the registrants contractually
bound to submit to the UDRP, all their disputes and consequences. Also, they are bound to
submit to the UDRP in case any aggrieved third party calls upon for that.

However, there is only one remedy that has been practically availed in most of the cases i.e.
Transfer of the domain name to the Complainant. If we look at the records till the year 2001,
cancellation has been 0rdered in less than even 0.008 % cases. 7 This is because once a
domain name is cancelled, it is again available for registration by any other person, and the
respondent himself can after associating with someone else get the same domain name
registered in his name. This is the primary benefit of the remedy of getting the domain name
transferred, another advantage which the complainant gets is that once the domain name is
taken away from the respondent, he can no longer operate on the Internet with the same
name. Consequently, it also ends up in hampering the business of a rival. Therefore, it is
always suggestible to get the domain name transferred in the name of the complainant rather
than getting it cancelled.”

“The features that make the UDRP unique are its specific descriptions of prohibited
conducts.8 According to the policy, a bad faith registration and use of a domain name is a
prohibited conduct , where the domain name owner does not has any rights or a legitimate
interest, or where the domain name is identically or deceptively similar to the trademark or
service mark of another person.9 The UDRP specifies non-exclusive circumstances which are
determinative of a right or legitimate interest in the domain name, and of bad faith

6
A. Michael Froomkin ‘ICANN's "Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy" - Causes and (Partial) Cures’ 67 Brook.
L. Rev. (2002) https://repository.law.miami.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1316&context=fac_articles
accessed 30 September 2023.
7
Andrew Christie ‘The ICANN Domain-Name Dispute Resolution System as a Model for Resolvingkher
Intellectual Property Disputes on the Internet’ The Journal of World Intellectual Property (2002)
http://achristie.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/2002-51-JWIP-105.pdf accessed 30 September 2023.
8
Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy 1999, para.4(a) (iii).
9
Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy 1999, para.4(a) (i).

Page | 5
registration and use of the domain name. The persons entitled to seek a remedy are the ones
who have a legitimate interest in registered or unregistered trademark, service mark or
domain name.10 In the United States the disputes related to registration of domain names are
dealt by the provisions of the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act ("ACPA") and
the Indian policy of IN Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (INDRP) are the best
examples of UDRP based policies adapted by individual states.”11

II. WIPO MECHANISM

The WIPO Center holds the distinction of being the initial accredited dispute resolution
service provider sanctioned by ICANN and the first one to receive a case under the UDRP.
The UDRP Policy outlines the legal framework for resolving disputes between a domain
name registrant and a third party (not the registrar) regarding the improper registration and
usage of an Internet domain name in generic top-level domains (gTLDs) such
as .biz, .com, .info, .mobi, .name, .net, .org, as well as in certain country code top-level
domains (ccTLDs) that have voluntarily adopted the UDRP Policy. During its meetings held
on August 25 and 26, 1999, in Santiago, Chile, the ICANN Board of Directors adopted the
UDRP Policy, primarily drawing from the recommendations presented in the WIPO Internet
Domain Name Process Report, alongside input from registrars and other stakeholders. All
ICANN-accredited registrars authorized to register names in gTLDs and ccTLDs that have
adopted the Policy have committed to adhering to and implementing it for these domains.
Anyone or any entity desiring to register a domain name in the aforementioned gTLDs and
ccTLDs must agree to the terms and conditions outlined in the UDRP Policy. Any person or
company in the world can file a domain name complaint concerning a gTLD using the UDRP
Administrative Procedure.12

If a dispute arises involving a domain name registered within a country code top-level
domain (ccTLD), the UDRP Administrative Procedure may also be employed, provided that
the relevant ccTLD registration authority has voluntarily adopted the UDRP Policy. This
information can be found in the overview of all ccTLDs for which WIPO offers dispute

10
Ibid.
11
Sana Singh, ‘Domain Name and Related Disputes’ (Mondaq, 15 June 2021)
https://www.mondaq.com/india/trademark/1080052/domain-name-and-related-disputes accessed 30 September
2023.
12
Dominik S. Fuchs, 'Alternative Dispute Resolution according to the WIPO Uniform Domain Name Dispute
Resolution Policy (UDRP)' (2010) 1 YB on Int'l Arb 305

Page | 6
resolution services. Paragraph 4(a) of the UDRP Policy stipulates that the UDRP
Administrative Procedure is exclusively applicable to disputes concerning the alleged
wrongful registration of a domain name, meeting the following criteria: (i) The domain name
registered by the domain name registrant is identical or perplexingly similar to a trademark or
service mark held by the complainant (the party initiating the complaint). (ii) The domain
name registrant lacks rights or legitimate interests concerning the domain name in question.
(iii) The domain name has been registered and is being utilized in bad faith.13

The primary benefit of the UDRP Administrative Procedure lies in its ability to offer a
quicker and more cost-effective means of resolving disputes related to the registration and
utilization of Internet domain names compared to resorting to legal proceedings. Moreover,
the procedures are notably less formal than traditional litigation, and the adjudicators possess
expertise in diverse fields such as international trademark law, domain name matters,
electronic commerce, the Internet, and dispute resolution. Another advantage is its global
applicability: it offers a unified mechanism for settling domain name disputes, irrespective of
the locations of the registrar, domain name holder, or complainant.14

The WIPO Center offers a Model Complaint that serves as a template for composing a
complaint in line with the UDRP criteria and regulations. The majority of complainants opt to
download the WIPO Model Complaint as a Word document, allowing them to fill it out for
eventual submission. Nevertheless, some complainants decide to submit the Model
Complaint directly online through the form provided by the WIPO Center. Regardless of the
chosen method, the complaint must be electronically submitted and sent in hardcopy to the
WIPO Center. Additionally, copies must be dispatched to both the respondent and the
registrar.

The WIPO Center operates as a not-for-profit entity and maintains a UDRP Schedule of Fees
on its website, where you can also find information about payment methods. The filing fee
for a WIPO case depends on two factors: the number of domain names involved in the
dispute and whether one or three panelists are chosen by the parties. The majority of WIPO
cases typically involve 1-5 domain names and a single panelist. As of the end of 2004, the fee
for such a case was USD 1,500. The WIPO Center retains a portion of this fee as an
administration charge and forwards the majority to the panelist(s). For cases with a single

13
Ibid
14
Robert W. Sacoff, 'A Consumer's View of UDRP Actions' (2005) 23 IPL Newsl 20

Page | 7
panelist, the entire fee is paid by the complainant. If a complainant requests a three-member
panel, they are responsible for paying the full fee. However, if a respondent requests a three-
member panel, the fee is evenly split between the complainant and the respondent. 15

UDRP disputes are resolved by impartial panels selected by the WIPO Center. “In UDRP
proceedings, the remedies accessible to a complainant are restricted to either the transfer of
the disputed domain name registration to the complainant or, less frequently requested, the
option of canceling the domain name registration. Monetary compensation or injunctive relief
is not available as remedies in these cases. Panels make their decisions based on the
information presented in the complaint and response, without holding oral hearings.

If a panel determines that a contested domain name registration should be canceled or

transferred to the complainant, the involved registrar typically implements this decision
within ten business days. In the event that the complaint is denied, the registrar will unlock
the domain name for the benefit of the respondent.”

15
Ibid

Page | 8
 IV. POSITION IN UNITED STATES

The United States is the nation where the Internet first developed. As access to the internet
was gradually provided to the general public, it led to instances of cybersquatting. The first
case dealing with the issue relating to cybersquatting in the U.S was the MTV Networks v
Curry dispute of 1994 in which, Mr Adam Curry who was a past employee under MTV
started a website with the domain name ‘mtv.com’. 16 At this juncture, the Lanham Act
provisions that concern with the misuse of another person’s trademark to confuse and deceive
customers17 were only available to be applied. From the year 1996, the Federal Trademark
Dilution Act came into enforcement which was revised again in 2006. This provision allowed
the owner of a well-known/famous trademark to have recourse against the commercial use of
his trademark by another person without approval and in turn cause dilution of value or
quality of the famous trademark.18 It was not necessary to show that the use of the mark
caused confusion, but rather the importance was to prove whether the use by other party
reduces the distinctive quality of the trademark.19 For example, in the 1996 case of Intermatic
Inc v Toeppen, it was held that the defendant’s act of creating a domain name called
intermatic.com had violated section 1125 (c) as it reduces the distinctive quality of the
trademark of Intermatic Inc.20 Therefore, a broad application of the section was recommended
by the court. The issue that arose in these cases was the elements of ‘famousness’ and
‘commercial use requirement’ itself. Most cyber squatters do not have the aim to hold a
business but instead to receive heavy ransom from the original owner of the particular
trademark name.21 To overcome such difficulties, a need for new legislation was felt and it
was realised in 1999, in the form of “Anti-cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA).”

ACPA is aimed at protecting consumers and promoting electronic commerce and business. It
targets the use of someone else’s distinctive or famous trademark as domain names in bad
faith. As per section 1125(d)(1)(A)(ii), it makes even an action of simply registering or using
another person’s trademark as a domain name to be actionable 22 , and the subclause (i) places
the liability on anyone who has a bad faith to gain profit. 23 A mere similarity is not enough to
16
MTV Networks v Curry (1994) 867 F Supp 202 SDNY.
17
Lanham Trade-mark Act 1946, 15 USC s1125(a)(1).
18
ibid, 15 USC s1125(c).
19
Allon Lifshitz, ‘Cybersquatting’ (2001) 38 Harv J on Legis 533.
20
Intermatic Inc v Toeppen (1996) 947 F Supp 1227.
21
Cybersquatting and Consumer Protection: Ensuring Domain Name Integrity, 106th Cong 687 (1999).
22
Lanham Trade-mark Act 1946, 15 USC s1125(d)(1)(A)(ii).
23
ibid 15 USC s1125(d)(1)(A)(i).

Page | 9
prove bad faith, it has to be proven by direct and other circumstantial evidence. 24 The wider
ambit of it is sufficient to include cases such as that of ransom. The domain need not even be
connected to any goods or services25. Action can be taken in two regards, (i) trademark
provision and (ii) in rem provision. The former is against any accused who can be traced and
is within the jurisdiction of courts in the United States, and the latter is used in cases where
the accused cannot be traced or is beyond the jurisdictional area of the US courts.26

The right in rem jurisdiction has been criticised for being in violation of the comity of nations
principle and due to the very global nature of the internet, it is often difficult to provide apt
relief. The Sallen v Corinthians Licenciamentos LTDA case is a landmark in American
jurisprudence as it held that a case that was already lost under WIPO can be addressed by US
courts again under ACPA as the criteria and laws might be different. 27 Another argument
against ACPA is for being highly tilted towards the trademark owners and hence, being
unfavourable to the cause of freedom of speech and expression. This contradiction was
outlined in the case of Lucent v Lucentsucks. It was not held in this case the use of the domain
name in this context is not in bad faith and was accepted as a critic parody website which
comes under the freedom of speech.28 A drawback of ACPA is that it does not provide for
any criteria to evaluate the statutory damage to be provided and the legislative history has
also been varying with respect to the aspect of damages. 29 As it is an intent-based
jurisprudence, there have been cases where even after the cessation of proceedings, the
transfer of domain to owner has been seen as a violation of ACPA.30

24
Virtual Works Inc v Volkswagen of America Inc (2001) 238 F3d 264.
25
Steven J Coran, ‘The Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act' In Rem Provision: Making American
Trademark Law the Law of the Internet?’ (2001) 30 (1) Hofstra Law Review 184.
26
Lanham Trade-mark Act 1946, 15 USC s1125(d)(2)(A).
27
Sue Ann Mota, ‘The Anti-cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act: An Analysis of the Decisions from the
Courts of Appeals, 21 J. Marshall J. Computer & Info. L. 355’ (2003) 21(3) Journal on Contemporary Issues of
Law.
28
Lucent v Lucentsucks (2000) 95 F Supp 2d 528.
29
David M Kelly, ‘Statutory Damages Under the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act’ (2008) 16 BNA
PTCJ.
30
Storey v Cello Holdings LLC (2003) 347 F3d.

Page | 10
 V. POSITION IN INDIA

India does not have any legislation which deals with protection of domain names. 31Further,
the Information Technology Act, 2000 does not deals with cybersquatting. Since there is no
specific law in India, a victim of cybersquatting has the following options – sending cease
and desist letter to offenders, arbitration under ICANN’s rules or opting for trial in the
domestic courts.32 Majority of the cases are dealt by using the principle of passing off. In such
an action, the defendant is prohibited from using the domain name similar to that of the
complainant. In this part, the authors would discuss relevant judicial decisions which have
shaped the jurisprudence on cybersquatting in India.

In the case of Satyam Infoway Limited,33 “the Apex Court has recognized the absence of a
legislation which explicitly deals with dispute related to domain names in India. In this case,
the domain names of the respondent ‘www.siffynet.com’ and ‘www.siffynet.net’ were similar
to the domain name of the plaintiff i.e. ‘www.sifynet.com’. The plaintiff had a goodwill in
the industry and had registered its domain name with ICANN and WIPO. It had created the
domain name by using its company name Satyam Infoway.

The Supreme Court held that domain names act as identify marks for business as they help to
identify and differentiate the business or its service. Further, the court noted that a domain
name displays all the qualities of a trademark and that the use of a domain name may
constitute passing off. Moreover, the court held that although the operation of the Trade
Marks Act, 1999 is not extraterritorial and may not allow for adequate protection of domain
names, it does not mean that domain names cannot be legally protected to the extent possible
under such laws dealing with passing off.

The case of Yahoo! Inc34 is a landmark case in the Indian jurisprudence on cybersquatting.
The defendant was using the domain name ‘yahooindia.com’ whereas the plaintiff had
registered the domain name ‘yahoo.com’. The court passed an interim injunction against the
defendant preventing it from using the domain name like that of the plaintiff. In a case of
passing off, the court held that the degree of similarity between the marks is essentially
31
Sangeetha Lakshmi V, ‘The Menace of Cybersquatting and available legal measures to mitigate abuse of
domain names’ (2022) 2(1) Indian Journal of Integrated Research in Law.
32
S&A Law Offices, ‘Cyber Squatting Laws In India’ (Mondaq, 29 November 2012)
<https://www.mondaq.com/india/trademark/208840/cyber-squatting-laws-in-india> accessed 28 September
2023.
33
Satyam Infoway Ltd v Sifynet Solutions Pvt Ltd AIR 2004 SC 3540.
34
Yahoo! Inc. v Akash Arora Arb. L. R. 620 (Delhi High Court).

Page | 11
crucial because there is a high potential of confusion and deception. In this case, when both
domain names are taken into account, it becomes abundantly clear that there is every chance
that an Internet user could be misled into thinking that both domain names come from the
same source and connection even though they actually come from two different concerns.
This is due to the two names being nearly identical or similar in nature.”

Thereafter, we have another landmark case of Bennett Coleman35 where since 1996, the
complaint had owned the www.economictimes.com domain names and has used them to
publish their individual publications online. For literary purposes, the complainant had
registered this mark in India. However, the same domain name was registered in 1998 by
Steven S. Lavani of the USA. According to the WIPO decision, the complainant has a very
strong reputation in their newspaper titles as a result of their regular use in hard copy and
electronic publication. Additionally, it was unequivocally determined that the respondents
registered and used the domain names in bad faith because they did so with the intent of
deceiving Internet users into thinking that the complainant's trademarks were the source,
sponsors, affiliates, or endorsers of the websites in question and the services offered therein.

In Hindustan Unilever v Endurance Domains,36 the type of legal reliefs that can be provided
in situations of cybersquatting in India is clarified by the Bombay High Court's June 2020
ruling and Others. One of the biggest corporations in India, Hindustan Unilever Limited
(HUL), also owns and runs the websites www.unilever.com and www.hul.co.in for its
worldwide parent company. Several shady third-party domain name holders were the target
of an application filed by HUL.HUL requested relief/directions for the following: The
blocking of access to the dubious third-party sites and associated email addresses; the
suspension, continuation, and blocking of the sites;

The court outlined the underlying technology, the procedure involved in domain name
registrations, and the associated technicalities when addressing the redress sought against the
registrars37

1. A domain name registration is a simple, fully automated process that doesn't require
any human involvement.

35
Bennett Coleman & Co Ltd v Steven S Lalwani WIPO Case No: D2000-0014 and 2000-0015
36
2020 SCC OnLine Bom 809.
37
NV Saisunder & Aanchal Nichani, ‘India jurisdiction report: Judicial relief in cybersquatting disputes’ (World
Intellectual Property Review, 2 November 2020) <https://www.worldipreview.com/contributed-article/india-
jurisdiction-report-judicial-relief-in-cybersquatting-disputes> accessed 28 September 2023.

Page | 12
 2. A registrar may suspend the registration of a domain name, but they cannot 'limit
access' to that domain name. The government typically instructs an internet service
provider to "block access," thus ordering a registrar to do so is not practical. The court
also emphasized its reluctance to issue any orders restricting access because they are
ineffectual and simple to circumvent.
3. Regarding the request for a "continued suspension," the court reaffirmed the
automated nature of domain name registration and the fact that any suspension would
last only as long as the registration period (one year).

Based on this fundamental premise, the court only permitted "suspension" and ordered the
relevant registrars to suspend the offending third-party domain names.

Page | 13
 VI. CONCLUSION

There is no legislation which deals with cybersquatting in India. In the absence of the same,
cybersquatting is challenged on the grounds of trademark infringement and passing off. With
the increase in online business activities, the practice of cybersquatting is increasing. Like
many other countries, India should also introduce separate laws to deal with cybersquatting
so that these crimes can be avoided in the future. In order to protect the domain names, India
needs new legislation against cyber-squatting. Such law will ensure that the courts have the
power to levy penalty or even sentence offenders to imprisonment on a uniform basis.
Further, the plaintiff should also be provided with an option to obtain statutory damages This
will make it difficult for cybersquatters to get away and ensure the protection of interests of
the genuine parties.

Page | 14