DR.

RAM MANOHAR
LOHIYA NATIONAL LAW
UNIVERSITY

SEMINAR PAPER-LAW SCIENCE AND

TECHNOLOGY
TOPIC:-THE CONCEPT AND SCOPE OF DOMAIN NAMES

SUBMITTED TO

SUBMITTED BY-

MR.AMANDEEP SINGH

ABHISHT HELA

FACULTY OF LAW.

SEMESTER - XTH
ROLL NO.- 07
SECTION-

ACKNOWLEGDEMENTS
A research project of such great scope and precision could never have been possible without
great co-operation from all sides. Contributions of various people have resulted in this effort.
Firstly, I would like to thank God for the knowledge he has bestowed upon me.
I would also like to take this opportunity to thank Mr. AMANDEEP SIR Sir. without
whose valuable support and guidance, this project would have been impossible. I would like to
thank the library staff for having put up with my persistent queries and having helped me out
with the voluminous materials needed for this project. I would also like to thank my seniors for
having guided me and culminate this acknowledgement by thanking my friends for having kept
the flame of competition burning, which spurred me on through the days.
And finally My parents who have been a support to me throughout my life and have helped
me, guided me to perform my best in all interests of my life, my grandparents who have always
inculcated the best of their qualities in me.

SUBMITTED BY:
ABHISHT HELA

INDEX
1. Introduction
2. Generic & Geographic Top-Level Domain Names
3. Assignment of domain names
4. Domain Name Disputes
5. Domain Name Dispute Resolution
i. ICANN Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution
Policy
ii. ".In" Dispute Resolution Process
6. Legal Position of Domain Names in India
7. Conclusion
8. Bibliography

Aims and objective: This project aims to study and explore the scope of Domain
Names, its related concepts and the legal mechanism dealing with the resolution of Domain
Names disputes.

Research Methodology: This Project is mainly based on Doctrinal Research

Case list
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.

Mcdonalds.com case
micros0ft.com case
Princeton Review v. Kaplan
MTV Networks v. Curry
Wired v. WIRE
Marks and Spencers P.I.C. v. One in a Million
World Wrestling Federation Entertainment, Inc. v. Michael Bosman
Satyam Infoway Ltd. v. Sifynet Solutions P. Ltd

Introduction
With the globalization and commercialization of the Internet, domain names have taken on a new
significance as business identifiers. When the Internet was in its infancy, domain names were
created to serve as useful mnemonic means of locating specific computers on the Internet.
Domain names are simply the addresses of the Internet. E-mail is sent and web pages are found
through the use of domain names. For example, the web address for the Microsoft web site is
www.microsoft.com, while Bill Gates might have an e-mail address such as bill@microsoft.com
(both using the "microsoft.com" domain name). Without the domain name, a computer would
have no idea where to look for a web page, and e-mail routers would not be able to send e-mail.
Of course, domain names are more than just addresses, since they can be selected by the
"addressee" and are usually closely associated with a particular service or product.

An address in the cyber-space is imperative in the new e-economy for companies and individuals
to be easily traceable by their consumers with the emergence of the Internet as an advertising
forum, recruiting mechanism, and marketplace for products and services whereby companies
doing business have a strong desire to register domain names akin to their products, trade names
or trademarks. For example, owners of famous trademarks, such as Haier, typically register their
trademarks as domain names, such as www.haier.com. Domain names may be valuable corporate
assets, as they facilitate communication with a customer base. With the advancement of Internet
communication, the domain name has attained as much legal sanctity as a trademark or trade
name and, therefore, it is entitled to protection.
The very basis of Internet is Internet Protocol (IP) used for inter computer / inter server
communication, each computer / server having its own unique all numeric IP address. The fact
that these addresses are not catchy and are difficult to remember has had a major role to play in
the development of the DNS and the emergence of domain names as corporate assets. Thus, a
domain name is a popular substitute for the all numeric IP address of a particular server. To make
an Internet address more user friendly, a unique numeric address may be matched with a
mnemonic domain name (such as mcdonalds.com). This systematization of recognition of
proxy names is categorized as the Domain Name System.

Generic & Geographic Top-Level Domain Names

Domain names are divided into hierarchies. The top-level of the hierarchy appears after the last
dot ('.') in a domain name. In "microsoft.com", the top level domain name is .COM. The .COM
name is the most common top-level domain name, and is used to indicate that the domain name
is owned by a commercial enterprise. Other common top-level domain names include .ORG (for
non-profit organizations), .NET (for network and Internet related organizations), .EDU (for fouryear colleges and universities), and .GOV (for government entities).
In addition to these generic domain names, each country has been given a unique top-level
domain name. For instance, .CA indicates a domain in Canada, and .IE indicates an Irish domain.
Although there is a .US top-level domain name, most organizations in the United States outside

of state and local governments opt for one of the generic names (i.e., .COM, .ORG, .NET),
which are available to entities in any country. For several years there have been proposals to add
new generic top-level names, such as .FIRM, .STORE, and .WEB.
The disputes that arise over domain names involve "second level" domain names. The second
level name is the name directly to the left of the top-level domain name in an Internet address.
For instance, in the address "www.microsoft.com", the second level domain name is Microsoft.
Two identical second level domain names cannot coexist under the same top level domain. In
these new guises, they sometimes conflict with trademarks and other traditional business
identifiers. Two factors exacerbate this conflict. Firstly, domain names are global and must be
unique - a particular string of letters can link to only one site - while trademarks may overlap in
different industries or different geographical locations. Secondly, it is common practice for many
Internet users to guess at domain names. Users often seek to guess the domain name of a
prominent company. For example, an Internet user interested in discussing a recent skydiving
expedition with the Editors of SKY DIVERS, might try "sd.com," "skydive.com," or
skydivers.com" to locate this magazine's address. Thus domain names based on intuition become
valuable corporate assets.

Assignment of domain names

In order to register a second level domain name under a top-level domain, a request must be
made to the organization that has the power to assign names for that top-level domain. Prior to
December 1999, a company called Network Solutions Inc. ("NSI") was almost solely responsible
for the registration of second level domain names for the most popular top-level domains,
including .COM, .NET, and .ORG. Since the vast majority of domain names are under one of
these top-level domains (the most common being .COM domain names), Network Solutions had
a great deal of control over how domain names were registered, and how disputes would be
resolved. To avoid having to be the arbitrator between two parties who both desire the same
domain name, NSI decided to simply adopt a first come, first serve arrangement with respect to
domain names. Under this scheme, NSI would not question an applicant's right to have a
particular domain name. If the domain name was available, the applicant was given the name.

Under this much maligned policy, NSI created a procedure under which a third-party can
challenge the right of a domain name owner to use a particular domain name. If the challenge
were successful, the domain name would be suspended. This policy only protected parties that
had a nationally registered trademark identical to another party's second level domain name (i.e.,
Microsoft in "www.microsoft.com"). An owner of an unregistered trademark could not initiate an
action under this policy, nor could an owner of a trademark that was confusingly similar (but not
identical). If the date that the trademark was first registered predated the domain name
registration, the domain name owner had to supply their own trademark registration for the
second-level domain name. If the domain name owner could not provide such a trademark
registration, NSI would suspend all use of the domain name. This is true even if the challenging
party could not properly prove a claim of trademark infringement
Post - December 1999, the ability to register .COM, .NET, and .ORG domain names was spread
out among many registrars. These registrars are accredited by The Internet Corporation for
Assigned Names and Numbers (or "ICANN"), a non-profit corporation formed specifically to
control Internet domain name management and similar functions. NSI continues to assign
domain names, but now they are just one of many domain name registrars. Following NSI's
precedence, all of these registrars assign names on a first-come, first-serve basis, and do not do
any checking before assigning a new domain name.
According to the ICANN policy, the registration of a domain name shall be considered to be
abusive when all the following conditions are met:
(i)

the domain name is identical or misleadingly similar to a trade or service mark in

(ii)

which the complainant has rights; and

the holder of the domain name has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the

(iii)

domain name; and

the domain name has been registered in bad faith.

The term bad faith does not simply mean bad judgment but it implies the conscious doing of a
wrong with a dishonest purpose. In order to prove bad faith, the following circumstances, if
found,

are

sufficient

evidence

of

bad

faith

registration.

Firstly, when there is an offer to sell, rent or otherwise transfer the domain name to the owner of
the trademark or service mark, or to a competitor of the complainant for valuable consideration.
In Marks and Spencers P.I.C. v. One in a Million 1, the defendants had registered domain names
corresponding to well-known trademarks with a view to make profits either by selling them to
the owners of the goodwill or to collectors.
The second circumstance, which can constitute, as evidence of bad faith is when the respondent
registers the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from
reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that you have engaged in a pattern
of such conduct. In Julia Roberts case, the domain name juliaroberts.com registered by the
respondent was transferred to her since domain name hijacking is evidence of bad faith. The
third circumstance, which leads to inference of bad-faith, is when by using the domain name, a
party has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, internet users to its website or
other online location by creating a likelihood of confusion with the trade or service mark of the
complainant. For instance, where a person registers a domain name reebuk.com in order to divert
domain name traffic from reebok.com.

Domain Name Disputes

Companies have realized that having a domain name that is the same as their company name or
the name of one of their products can be an extremely valuable part of establishing an Internet
presence.
SOME OF THE HUGELY PUBLICIZED ILLUSTRATIONS OF THESE DISPUTES
ARE:
candyland.com: Both Hasbro and an adult entertainment provider desired the candyland.com
domain name. Hasbro was too late to register the name itself, but it is never too late to sue. The
domain name is now safely in the hands of Hasbro.

1 [1998] EWCA Civ 1272

Mcdonalds.com: This domain name was taken by an author from Wired magazine who was
writing a story on the value of domain names. In his article, the author requested that people
contact him at ronald@mcdonalds.com with suggestions of what to do with the domain name. In
exchange for returning the domain name to McDonalds, the author convinced the company to
make a charitable contribution.
micros0ft.com: The company Zero Micro Software obtained a registration for micros0ft.com
(with a zero in place of the second 'o'), but the registration was suspended after Microsoft filed a
protest. When the domain name went abandoned for non-payment of fees, the domain name was
picked up by someone else: Vision Enterprises of Roanoke, TX

CASE LAWS REGARDING TRADEMARKS DISPUTE OVER INTERNET

DOMAIN NAMES
1. Princeton Review v. Kaplan2
Princeton Review, Inc. ("Princeton Review"), a test preparation service, obtained the domain
name "kaplan.com," which contains the trademark of its commercial rival, Stanley H. Kaplan
Educational Centers, Ltd. ("Kaplan"). In what is believed to be the first ruling on this issue, a
mutually agreed three person arbitration panel recently required Princeton Review to relinquish
the "kaplan.com" domain name to Kaplan.

2 In re No. 13-199-00145 94, Private Arbitration Between Stanley H. Kaplan Educational Center, Ltd. v.
The Princeton Review Management Corp.)

The first key fact is that the panel had to assume that Internet addresses can in fact act as
trademarks. This is not surprising given the true nature of Internet addresses. Although the name
"addresses" conjures up the post office addresses of real-world places, this is only part of the
purpose of Internet addresses.
As summarized in the colorful prose of the McDonald's pirate himself: "Domain names are to the
Internet what addresses are to the Postal Service. They're more than that, really, since your
domain name can tell the on-line world something about who you are. Domain names are kind of
like postal addresses, vanity license plates and billboards, all rolled into one digital enchilada.
The second key fact about the "kaplan.com" case confirms the ability of domain names to serve
as trademarks. To quote the McDonald's pirate again: "If you logged into kaplan.com, you could
read a Q&A comparing the programs offered by [Princeton Review and Kaplan]. Which one do
you think came out looking better?" Internet users, unaware that Princeton Review was the real
owner of this address, would no doubt think that Kaplan was the owner of this address and the
source of the information located there.
In short, Princeton Review's registration of the domain name "kaplan.com" very likely not only
produced confusion among Internet users over the source of the information located at this
address, but real damage to Kaplan's goodwill. The third important fact is that the President of
the Princeton Review, John Katzman, admitted they had registered the domain name
"kaplan.com" "in part just to irritate [Kaplan] . . . Clearly, we've done that." This equity
"unclean hands" aspect of the "kaplan.com" case may be applicable to many other "domain
grabbing" cases likely to arise from the current gold rush. Assuming that this factor played a role
in the panel's decision, they most likely followed traditional trademark law regarding bad intent.
Under traditional trademark law, intent to adopt a mark to derive a benefit from the reputation of
another is one of several factors in evaluating whether the infringing use is likely to cause
confusion in the market.

2. MTV Networks v. Curry3

3 867 F.Supp. (S.D.N.Y. 1994)

A former MTV video jockey, Adam Curry, registered the Internet domain name "mtv.com" while
working for MTV Networks ("MTVN"). Internet users connected to the "mtv.com" address could
find the posting of "MTV's Top Ten Music List," outtakes from MTV Networks ("MTVN")
programming, a printout of the text of a dialog between MTVN characters Beavis and Butt-head,
and a giveaway of MTV-logo T-shirts to subscribers. Promptly after Curry's departure from MTV
Networks, he was sued by MTV Networks for trademark infringement, among other things,
because he refused to stop using the "mtv.com" Internet address. Although the court only
addressed pre-trial motions before the case settled, two significant points may be gleaned from
the court's initial decision.
The first is that Curry never argued that the Internet was exempt from trademark law. Instead,
Curry argued that the domain name "mtv.com" was not going to be used in a confusing manner.
The issue, claimed Curry, was whether MTV Networks has "'some inherent right in mtv.com.'"
The second important point is the clue provided by the MTV Networks v. Curry court about how
it might rule on the key issue succinctly stated by Curry. In a footnote, the court explains Internet
domain names and analogizes them to "telephone number mnemonics." The analogy is apt
because, as noted above, the Internet domain names are in fact mnemonics for the true, but
unwieldy, initial section of a numerical address.
Although the MTV Networks v. Curry court did not address the scope of trademark protection for
Internet domain names, its telephone number mnemonics analogy suggests a fruitful line of
analysis.

3. Wired v. WIRE
The last case that has arisen recently regarding claims of trademark infringement based on an
Internet domain name found the cutting-edge cyberspace magazine entitled Wired complaining
about the domain name used by WIRE, a computer network devoted to women's issues. Wired
used "wired.com" as its domain name; WIRE used "wire.net." Rather than litigating the issues,
WIRE decided that as a start-up company it could not afford legal wrangling and had to focus on
its business instead. The parties settled with WIRE agreeing to change its name to Women's Wire

and its domain name to "wwire.net." In return, Wired agreed to pay half the cost of the name
change expenses, such as redoing on-line graphics and identity materials.
Although the Wired case never even advanced as far as a cease-and-desist letter, it does illustrate
two interesting issues. The first is that Wired demanded that WIRE change not only its Internet
domain name, but its business name too. Given the fairly close similarity between "wire" and
"wired," requiring WIRE to also change its business name to WOMEN'S WIRE helps to
minimize - in the context in which these Internet addresses are used - any likelihood of
confusion. The second interesting issue is that domain names, for purely technical reasons,
preclude parties from distinguishing themselves by capitalization, stylized formats, or designs.
Companies often use capitalization of letters in their marks as part of the mark itself. WIRE
obviously sought to do this, but was technically precluded from including this additional
information in its domain name. For the same reason, special stylized formats and designs are
also excluded from domain names. As a result, companies will find it even more difficult to keep
their domain name distinguishable from other domain names because there are fewer ways to
make domain names distinctive.

Domain Name Dispute Resolution

1. ICANN Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy:On October 24, 1999, a new Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy was
promulgated by ICANN, a California not-for-profit corporation that has assumed some of the
duties of administration of the DNS. ICANN operates under close supervision by the U.S.
Department of Commerce. NSI, the largest domain-name registrar, adopted the ICANN
policy shortly thereafter, and in November 1999 NSI ceased processing disputes under its old
policy. Domain names that were placed on hold under the old NSI policy are now being
reactivated, and parties may seek relief under either the new ICANN policy or the new Anticyber squatting Consumer Protection Act. The ICANN policy differs from the prior NSI
policy-which had been in effect since 1996-in three key respects. Under the new ICANN
policy: the trademark holder is not required to own a trademark registration for the mark that

has been incorporated in the domain name to which the trademark owner objects. The
domain name will not be suspended pending resolution of the dispute, the way the NSI policy
provided; rather, the status quo will remain until resolution.
The policy will result in an administrative decision that is final by its terms, rather than in
suspension of a domain name pending outside resolution. (However, an ICANN
administrative decision is final only if neither of the parties brings an action in court.)
The ICANN policy forbids registration of a domain name if (1) the domain name is identical
or confusingly similar to another's trademark, (2) the entity registering the domain name has
no legitimate right to it, or (3) the domain name was registered and used in bad faith.
Disputes under the ICANN rules are referred to a one- or three-member administrative panel
that decides the dispute promptly and publishes the decision. The administrative decision is
final and binding on the registries and registrars subject to ICANN control, but it can be
superseded by court action. The proceeding is intended to be fast and inexpensive, to be
conducted by e-mail with no personal appearances, and to require minimal production of
documents (unless voluntarily offered by the parties or requested by the panel). The policy
also offers some protection to the domain-name holder, who may have legitimate rights to a
domain name. The policy permits the panel to rule that the complaint was brought in bad
faith to "reverse hijack" the domain name or to harass the domain-name holder. Relief for
such conduct is limited to a declaration of abuse of the administrative proceeding.
The first dispute under the ICANN policy was decided on January 14, 2000, and has been
published by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), which provided the
single panelist. In World Wrestling Federation Entertainment, Inc. v. Michael Bosman4, the
domain name at issue-"worldwrestlingfederation.com"- was registered by Bosman through
an Australian domain-name registrar. The panel found bad faith under the relevant factors in
light of Bosman's own statement that his primary purpose in registering the domain name
was to sell it to the WWF. Although Bosman had not established a Web site under the

4 1 N.C. J.L. & Tech. 3 (2000)

disputed domain name, the panel found "use" in Bosman's offer to sell the domain name to
the WWF. The decision required transfer of the domain-name registration to the WWF.
One limitation on the usefulness of the ICANN policy is that it is a hybrid of mediation and
arbitration. By the terms of the policy, neither party to a proceeding is barred, at any time,
from resort to litigation in any court of competent jurisdiction. Any final judgment by such a
court will supersede any ruling by an ICANN dispute-resolution service provider.

2. ".In" Dispute Resolution Process:The IN Registry has published the .IN Dispute Resolution Policy (INDRP) which is a mandatory
dispute resolution procedure. India does not subscribe to UDRP. However, INDRP has been
formulated in lines of UDRP, internationally accepted guidelines, and with the relevant
provisions of the Indian IT Act 2000.
INDRP sets out the terms and conditions to resolve a dispute between the Registrant and the
Complainant, arising out of the registration and use of the .in Internet Domain Name. Para 4,
INDRP is strikingly similar to Para 4 (a) of the UDRP and constitutes the same essential
premises for filing a complaint. INDRP makes it obligatory on the Registrant to submit to
arbitration proceeding in an event a complaint is brought against the same with .IN Registry.

Upon receipt of complaint the .IN Registry shall appoint an Arbitrator out of the list of arbitrators
maintained by the Registry. Within 3 days from the receipt of the complaint the Arbitrator shall
issue a notice to the Respondent. The Arbitrator shall then conduct the Arbitration Proceedings in
accordance with the Arbitration & Conciliation Act 1996 and also in accordance with this Policy
and rules provided there under. Once the arbitrator is appointed the .IN Registry shall notify the
parties of the Arbitrator appointed. The Arbitrator shall pass a reasoned award and shall put
forward a copy of it immediately to the Complainant, Respondent and the .IN Registry. The
award shall be passed within 60 days from the date of commencement of arbitration proceeding.
In exceptional circumstances this period may be extended by the Arbitrator maximum for 30
days.
Evidence of registration and use of domain name in Bad Faith has to be ascertained by the
Arbitrator taking in to consideration Para 6, INDRP; but without any limitation. These
considerations are analogous to those provided under Para 4(b), UDRP. The Arbitrator shall
ensure that copies of all documents, replies, rejoinders, applications, orders passed from time to
time be forwarded to .IN Registry immediately for its records and for maintaining the
transparency in the proceedings. The policy provides that no in-person hearings is take place
(including hearings by teleconference, videoconference, and web conference), unless the
Arbitrator determines, in his sole discretion and as an exceptional matter, that such a hearing is
necessary for deciding the Complaint .
The remedies available to a Complainant pursuant to any proceeding before an Arbitrator is
limited to cancellation of the Registrant's domain name or the transfer of the Registrant's domain
name registration to the Complainant. Costs may also be awarded by the Arbitrator. The INDRP
prohibits a Registrant from transferring a disputed domain name registration to another holder in
case an Arbitration proceeding is initiated pursuant to this policy, for a period of 15 working days
("working day" means any day other than a Saturday, Sunday or public holiday) after such
proceeding is concluded, or, while the dispute is pending, unless the party to whom the domain
name registration is being transferred agrees, in writing, to be bound by the decision of the court
or arbitrator.

LEGAL POSITION OF DOMAIN NAMES IN INDIA

The issue concerning protection of domain names came up before the Supreme Court of India in
the case of Satyam Infoway Ltd. v Sifynet Solutions P.Ltd.5 The Court, in an authoritative decision
has held that internet domain names are subject to the same legal norms applicable to other
intellectual properties such as trademarks. The Court further held :
The use of the same or similar domain name may lead to a diversion of users which could result
from such users mistakenly accessing one domain name instead of another. This may occur in ecommerce with its rapid progress and instant (and theoretically limitless) accessibility to users
and potential customers and particularly so in areas of specific overlap. Ordinary
consumers/users seeking to locate the functions available under one domain name may be
confused if they accidentally arrived at a different but similar website which offers no such
services. Such users could well conclude that the first domain name owner had misrepresented
its goods and services through its promotional activities and the first domain owner would
thereby lose their custom. It is apparent therefore that a domain name may have all the
characteristics of a trade mark and could found an action for passing off.
The Court further held that there is no legislation in India which explicitly refers to dispute
resolution in connection with domain names. The operation of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 is also
not extra territorial and may not allow for adequate protection of domain names. This does not
mean that domain names are not to be legally protected to the extent possible under the laws
relating to passing off.
The Court further held that a domain name is accessible by all internet users and the need to
maintain an exclusive symbol for such access is crucial.. Therefore a deceptively similar
domain name may not only lead to a confusion of the source but the receipt of unsought for
services. The court observed that It may be difficult for the appellant to prove actual loss having

5 2004(28) PTC 566

regard to the nature of the service and the means of access but the possibility of loss in the form
of diverted customers is more than reasonably probable.
In India per-se there is no specific law/statute for the protection of domain names though the
same can be protected by the principles of Trademark Act, 1999. It is pertinent to note that
protection to domain names can only be given when such domain name is a registered trademark
of another person6. It is pertinent to note that both Civil and Criminal remedies are
simultaneously available against the infringement and passing off of a trademark.

Conclusion

This is a rapidly changing area of law, and additional remedies may become available in the near
future. Some U.S. state legislatures are considering state remedies, and there is the remote
possibility that ICANN may acquire jurisdiction over ccTLD registrations, with the result of
broader imposition of the ICANN policy. In general, the advantages of the ICANN policy are
clearly its speed, its low cost, and its ability to resolve cross-border disputes. If a remedy is
available under the Lanham Act, as amended by the Anti-cyber squatting Consumer Protection
Act, the advantages are final adjudication and the availability of damages.

6 S. 29 (1), Trade Marks Act, 1999- A registered trade mark is infringed by a person who, not
being a registered proprietor or a person using by way of permitted use, uses in the course
of trade, a mark whichis identical with, or deceptively similar to, the trade mark in relation
to goods or services in respect of which the trade mark is registered and in such manner as
to render the use of the mark likely to be taken as being used as a trade mark.

The explosion of new gTLDs and ccTLDs will help not only streamline the contents available to
a consumer on the Internet but will enable a user to access data faster and more resourcefully.
This jubilation is marred by the conviction that such growth will also lead to larger number of
cases involving cybersquatting, leading not only to confusion but also economic suffering. The
need for better and more efficient means to fight this peril is necessary as e-commerce take
another step forward with time. Policies such as UDRP and INDRP may be viable concepts now,
but the ingenuity of a rogue cybersquatter should not be undervalued. Thus, it is imperative that
judiciary must be proactive to balance both trade-interest and right of free-speech.

As far as India is concerned, one has to be pragmatic and it is to be realised that the virtual
world of cyberspace needs a law for itself. Bringing cyber piracy within the framework of the
Trade Marks Act, would result in granting trademark holders more extensive protection than
what the legislature originally intended. The development may not be healthy because, although
the intention of the Court may be to discourage cyber squatting and trade mark infringements in
cyberworld to curb a social evil, it may result in dangerous precedents, where even genuine
registrants of domain names may be adversely affected. The Electronic Commerce Bill, which
has been tabled before the Indian Parliament, does not deal with the issue of cyber squatting. The
imperative need of the hour is therefore for the legislature to catch up with the technical
developments and pass a separate law prohibiting cyber squatting or any other malafide
registration of a domain name. Moreover it should never be forget that mere by registration of a
domain name it does not confer any right on such registrant.
A domain name is a valuable asset and may be likened to a trade mark on the Internet. Currently,
Indian companies have the option to resort to the UDRP to settle disputes relating to the
deliberate misuse of trademarks through the registration of domain names in the gTLDs. The
accredited Service Providers pass quick and inexpensive resolutions relating to domain name
disputes. Indian companies may also resolve their grievances relating to domain names by filing
a suit in a civil court of competent jurisdiction.

Bibliography
Books
1. Weiswasser, Gayle, Domain Names, the Internet, and Trademarks: Infringement in
Cyberspace Cyberspace/Internet Law.
2. Robert A. Badgley, Domain name disputes, Aspen Publishers Online, 2002.
3. Jacqueline Lipton, Internet Domain Names, Trademarks and Free Speech, Edward
Elgar Publishing, 2010
4. Eun-Joo Min, Mathias Lill"eengen, WIPO Arbitration Center, Collection of WIPO
domain name panel decisions, Kluwer Law International, 2004

Web Reference
1.
2.
3.
4.

www.icann.org
www.wipo.int
www.net4.in
www.cyber.law.harvard.edu
5. www.whitecase.com