THREAT OF CYBERSQUATTING: PROTECTING YOUR TRADEMARK ONLINE

Cybersquatting is a growing practice that presents a significant threat to intellectual property in the contemporary digital age. It refers to the registration, use, or trafficking of internet domain names in bad faith with the intention of gaining from the reputation of established trademarks. This phenomenon occurs at the point where the internet and intellectual property law, specifically trademark law, converge. It is more relevant and needs to be taken up for proper study in India. The International body ICANN that deals with the domain name of the country has developed Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) in this regard.

Cybersquatting falls within the trademark law and thus is subject to the rules of the individual countries. For India, therefore, it will be subject to the jurisdiction of the laws of India. The recent controversy over the Jio Hotstar domain name raises the issue of the persistence of cybersquatting. Fraudulent domain registrants attempted to exploit the trademarks of Reliance Jio and Disney+ Hotstar by creating misleading domains like jiotvhotstar.com, aiming to deceive users through phishing scams or generate advertising revenue.  The incident raises an urgent need for more robust protections and consumer awareness about cybersquatting.

Cybersquatting, at first glance, is a cyber or commercial issue, but in essence it impacts intellectual property rights. The need to protect those rights is a critical necessity for innovation, competition, and growth in this digital landscape. This blog post explores the concept of cybersquatting in the Indian context, examines legal precedence, and offers recommendations for policy reforms alongside strategies to protect trademarks online.

Cybersquatting in the Indian Context

India addresses the issue of cybersquatting through the Information Technology Act, 2000, and the Trademarks Act, 1999, but both do not have explicit provisions on the issue. Unlike in the United States, which has enacted the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA), India relies on judicial interpretation and precedents to counter cybersquatting.

In Tata Sons Ltd v. Manu Kosuri & Ors, the latter allegedly registered several domain names containing the trademark “TATA” for their malicious intent to gain advantage from the goodwill of a trademark. The Delhi High Court held in the former’s favour. Although such judgments do come into place, there is still no specific legislative structure available for trademark owners, thereby compounding the importance for comprehensive legislation on this issue.

Judicial Response in the Lack of Specific Legislation

India’s judiciary has utilised a range of legal instruments to counter cybersquatting: –

1. Trademark Act, 1999: – Section 29 criminalizes unauthorised use of trademarks that lead to confusion among consumers. In Rediff Communication Ltd v. Cyberbooth, the Bombay High Court held that domain names are analogous to trademarks, and “Radiff” registered as a trademark was infringed upon by “Rediff “.
2. Common Law Principles: – Courts frequently invoke the doctrine of “passing off.” In Yahoo Inc. v. Akash Arora, court held that an almost identical domain name  likely to cause confusion amongst users.
3. Information Technology Act, 2000: – Sections 43 and 66 deal with unauthorized access and misuse of information but are not adequate enough for dealing with disputes related to cybersquatting in detail.

Landmark cases like Sholay Media Entertainment v. Yogesh Patel saw the courts extend trademark protection to well-known marks like “Sholay,” emphasizing the misuse of domain names to exploit goodwill. The lack of dedicated cybersquatting laws leads to fragmented and inconsistent solutions.

Legislative Gaps and Recommendations

India has a law, but it is piecemeal and does not provide a specific law for cybersquatting. Jurisdictional conflicts and inconsistent judgments are the most common problems there.

To address these deficits, the following reforms are hereby suggested: –

1. Define cybersquatting as a distinct crime under the Trademark Act or IT Act.
2. Jurisdiction guidelines be established for the redressal of domain-name disputes.
3. Extend protection to unregistered trademarks that have gained well-known names.
4. Adopt the UDRP’s three-pronged test: domain name rights, bad faith, and confusing similarity.
5. Public awareness campaigns and digital literacy programs can be undertaken by the government to prevent cybersquatting and promote respect for intellectual property rights.

Means of Protecting Your Trademark Online

It involves both legal and proactive steps in order to protect a trademark in the cyber world. The legal strength comes from the Trademarks Act, 1999, and the international mechanisms that can speedily settle the domain disputes, such as UDRP. The business must take pre-emptive steps to ensure domain names carrying trademarks and variants.

Remedies in Indian courts are also available under the Information Technology Act, 2000, under sections 43 and 66, as well as the common law doctrine of “passing off,” which protects even unregistered trademarks. Continuous surveillance of domain registrations and online activities through specialized tools would allow the detection of infringement at an early stage. Increasing the awareness of employees, consumers, and other stakeholders about intellectual property rights and phishing threats is equally important.

                                                               Conclusion
Cybersquatting continues to be one of the most serious threats to trademark owners around the world. India has progressed well through judicial precedents, but the absence of specific legislation leaves plenty of room for exploitation. Strengthened trademark protection and vigilant monitoring can help businesses safeguard their brands and build consumer trust in the digital marketplace. Not only a legal imperative, this further explains protecting trademarks, but quite as necessary, for preserving a company brand and for instilling online world confidence.

References

1. The Anti cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA), 1999.
2. The Information Technology Act, 2000.
3. The Trademark Act, 1999.
4. Tata Sons Limited v. Mr. Manu Kosuri & Ors. 2001 PTC 432 (Del).
5. Rediff Communication Limited v. Cyberbooth & Anr. AIR 2000 Bombay 27.
6. Yahoo Inc. v. Akash Arora & Anr. 78(1999) DLT 285.
7. Sholay Media Entertainment v. Yogesh Patel, CS (COMM) 8/2016.
8. Nikhil Mishra and Damini Sharma, “Cybersquatting and Trademark Issues: An analysis with reference to India”, Manupatra Articles (2021).

Vedant Pujari, Partner

Ahana Roy Chowdhury, Senior Associate

Aditya Singh, Intern