In the realm of the internet, domain names are significant corporate assets and brands. As a result of the expansion of Internet commerce in the modern era of ubiquitous computing and wireless networking. Domain name conflicts have risen in India as a result of the country's fast development. Cyber-squatting, or the exploitation and mistreatment of domain names, has become more prevalent. The Indian courts have acknowledged domain names as online brands and business identities.

But because there isn't a particular rule, the courts haven't always punished the litigants fairly or granted them justice. Therefore, India urgently needs complete cyber-squatting legislation that provides sufficient security for domain names. This research paper examines court rulings and the existing legal system as they relate to cybersquatting in India. Additionally, it provides a worldwide view of International organizations and laws governing cybersquatting.

The report from the research also emphasizes the requirement for a specific domain name security legislation in India. This research paper seeks to identify the laws that presently safeguard domain names in India, the problems with them, the international framework with special regard to the USA, and the necessity of enacting a particular domain name protection legislation in India.

Definition Of Cybers-Quatting

Internet domain name registration is a common activity known as "cybersquatting." It is the theft of someone else's or another's business's goods. Today's society considers it to be one of the most important acts.

Domain Name

A domain name is both the website's name and its address (or "URL") on the internet. Usually, characters or phrases are simple for the average person to recall makeup domain names. For Example- www.trademarkname.in

A trademark name is a name that a company or individual chooses for their website, and WWW means "World Wide Web.". These names are typically similar to their trademarks and frequently include the name of the company.in - Denotes the nation in which the business is headquartered. For instance, ".in" refers to a company with its headquarters in India, while ".ca" refers to a company with its headquarters in Canada.

Cybersquatting History

According to Francis Gurry, the rise in instances of accused cybersquatting "demonstrates the growing premium that functioning in a connected society are both businesses and individuals place on domain names."

The danger of cybersquatting was raised in the latter part of the 1990s when internet use was just starting to expand more widely globally. The majority of companies at the time were unconcerned about the opportunities the Internet offered for commerce and the economy. The domain names of well-known businesses were purchased by cybersquatters and then transferred to the intended organization. Hertz was among the initial companies to fall victim to cybersquatting, along with Panasonic, Fry's Electronics, and Avo.[1]

State Of Laws Regarding Cybersquatting In The USA

In [2] Cybersquatting is described as "the authorization, illicit trade in, or use of a domain name that is identical to or resembles a mark, a business mark, or a different renowned mark at the point of the permission of the domain name," with no consideration for the products or services of the parties, with a fraudulent objective of profiting from the goodwill of another's mark, which includes the following:

1. deceit on consumers and mystification among consumers about the real origins of funding products and services;
2. limitation of e-commerce, which is crucial for intrastate trade and the US economy;
3. deprivation of significant revenues and consumer goodwill to legitimate trademark owners;
4. irrational, unbearable, and overpowering stress on trademark owners in securing their valuable trademarks.

State Of Laws Regarding Cybersquatting On The World Stage

Cybersquatting, according to the WIPO, is the unlawful purchase and utilization of a domain name that is the same as, or similarly unclear as close to a brand for which the applicant has a valid claim.

State Of Laws Regarding Cybersquatting In India

The issue of cyber-squatting and other domain name disputes is not covered by any particular laws in India. The[3] is used, though, to safeguard trademarks contained in domain names. The has the drawback of not being extraterritorial, which prevents it from offering domain name security that is sufficient. Despite the lack of such legislation, The Indian legal system has been very busy in providing redress in instances involving cybersquatting.

Yahoo Inc. v. Akash Arora[4] was the country of India's first cybersquatting incident. An American business named Yahoo Inc. filed a case requesting an order against the respondent Akash Arora after the latter registered a brand called "Yahoo.com" that was confusingly identical to Yahoo Inc.'s.

The respondent was not allowed to use "Yahoo!" because doing so would have infringed Yahoo Inc.'s copyright, according to a restraining ruling granted in the plaintiff's favour by the Delhi High Court. Consumers might be deceived despite the defendant's warning and the addition of the term "India" due to the confusing similarity with the domain name of the claimant. The Rediff case is yet another important decision in the growth of Indian domain name law.

The Bombay High Court declared in Rediff Communication Ltd. v. Cyberbooth and Others[5] A domain name is more than just a website address; it merits the same level of protection as a brand. The plaintiff, in this case, requested an order against the defendant for registering a domain name in their image because it was confusingly similar to their own and the plaintiff's. There was a single focus of effort. The judge was convinced that there was an obvious intent to deceive and that the defendants' sole motivation in registering was to profit from the plaintiff's goodwill and reputation.

End-Notes:

1. Khurrana and Khurrana IP Associates (https://www.khuranaandkhurana.com/2022/02/04/the-web-of-cybersquatting-are-laws-needed-to-clean-up-the-web/) (last visited on 25th March)
2. Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Bill, 1999
3. The Trade Mark Act of 1999
4. Yahoo Inc. v. Akash Arora 78 (1999) DLT 285
5. Rediff Communication Ltd. v. Cyberbooth and Others AIR 2000 Bombay 27