With the rise of the internet and e-commerce businesses, domain names have transformed from mere technical identifiers to critical business assets. In India, domain names now embody goodwill, recognition, and commercial value, akin to trademarks. Although the Trade Marks Act, 1999, does not explicitly cover domain names, Indian courts have repeatedly recognised their proprietary value through precedents. The primary forum for disputes concerning .in domains is the INDRP (IN Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy), established by NIXI. This framework mirrors the international UDRP and provides for remedies such as transfer, cancellation, and injunctive relief where bad faith registration, cybersquatting, or misuse is proven.
In this blog, we will examine the concept of domain name disputes in India, along with the established legal framework and remedies available in the event of infringement.
What is a Domain Name?
A domain name is a unique alphanumeric address used to identify a location on the Internet. It serves as a human-readable substitute for the numerical Internet Protocol (IP) address of a website. For example, in the domain name “www.example.com”, the term “example.com” is the domain name.
A domain name consists of two components:
- Second-Level Domain (SLD): The distinctive name selected by the user or business (e.g., “example”).
- Top-Level Domain (TLD): The suffix denoting the type or country of the domain, such as “.com”, “.in”, “.org”, or “.edu”.
Legal Recognition of Domain Names
Although the Indian Trade Marks Act, 1999, does not explicitly mention domain names, Indian courts have, through jurisprudential developments, recognised domain names as business identifiers akin to trademarks. The landmark judgment in Yahoo! Inc. v. Akash Arora & Anr., 1999 PTC (19) 201 (Del), was a turning point in Indian cyberspace jurisprudence. The Delhi High Court held that domain names serve the same function as trademarks and are entitled to equal protection.
The Court observed that internet users may be misled by deceptively similar domain names, emphasizing the importance of protecting legitimate business interests in the digital space. The Apex Court held that.
14. “…the defendant has been issuing a disclaimer. The disclaimer used by the defendants cannot eliminate the problem, as it was observed in the case of Jews for Jesus v. Brodsky; reported in 46 USPQ 2d 1652 that due to the nature of Internet use, defendant’s appropriation of plaintiff’s mark as a domain name and home page address cannot adequately be remedied by a disclaimer. It was also observed that considering the vastness of the Internet and its relatively recent availability to the general public, many Internet users are not sophisticated enough to distinguish between the subtle differences in the domain names of the parties…”
17. “… In my considered opinion and as discussed above, the plaintiff has been able to make out a prima facie case for grant of ad interim injunction in its favour and, therefore, an ad interim injunction is passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants restraining the defendants their partners, servants and agents from operating any business or selling, offering for sale, advertising and/or in any manner dealing in service or goods on the Internet or otherwise under the trademark/domain name ‘Yahooindia.com’ or any other trademark/domain name which is identical with or deceptively similar to the plaintiff trademark ‘Yahoo!’ till the disposal of the suit. …”
Following this judgment, courts have continuously upheld the proprietary interests of trademark owners in domain names.
Governing Law and Regulatory Mechanisms
India does not have a specific statute governing domain name disputes. However, such disputes are addressed through the application of:
- The Trade Marks Act, 1999;
- The Information Technology Act, 2000;
- Common law principles of passing off;
- INDRP (IN Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy);
- UDRP (Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy) for generic top-level domains (gTLDs).
INDRP: The Indian Framework
The National Internet Exchange of India (NIXI), the governing body for the ‘.in’ country-code top-level domain (ccTLD), formulated the INDRP in 2006 to resolve domain name disputes involving ‘.in’ domains. The INDRP is based on principles similar to those of the UDRP, adopted by ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers).
Under the INDRP, a complainant can seek the cancellation or transfer of a domain name if they can prove the following:
- The domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a name, trademark, or service mark in which the complainant has rights;
- The registrant has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name;
- The domain name has been registered or is being used in bad faith.
NOTE: The dispute resolution process under INDRP is governed by the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and conducted by arbitrators empanelled by NIXI. The arbitrator’s decision is binding on the parties.
Procedure:
- The complainant files a complaint and supporting evidence with NIXI.
- NIXI appoints an arbitrator within five days.
- The respondent is given notice and may file a reply.
- A decision is rendered within 60 days, extendable by reasoned order.
Bad Faith and Cybersquatting
The most common ground for domain name disputes is registration in bad faith. Section 11 of the INDRP Policy lists factors indicating bad faith, including:
- Registering a domain name primarily for selling it to the rightful owner at an inflated price;
- Preventing the owner of the trademark from reflecting the mark in a domain name;
- Disrupting the business of a competitor;
- Attracting users for commercial gain by creating confusion with the complainant’s mark.
Remedies Available in Domain Name Disputes
The aggrieved party can file a civil suit against infringement or passing off a proprietor’s mark:
- Injunction: Restraining the registrant from transferring the impugned domain name or using the infringing domain name.
- Damages: Monetary compensation in cases of proven loss or damage;
- Transfer or Cancellation: As per INDRP/UDRP award or under Section 135(1)(c) of the Trademarks Act, 1999, the court may order the registrar to cancel the offending registration or transfer it to the rightful proprietor.
- Passing Off Relief: Where the trademark is unregistered, the plaintiff/applicant may obtain injunctive relief and ancillary directions by proving prior reputation, misrepresentation, and likelihood of damage.
Conclusion
Domain names are now considered critical corporate assets, rather than just addresses, in the digital economy. The Indian legal system has evolved through judicial recognition, arbitral processes such as the INDRP, and adherence to international standards, despite the absence of explicit statutory requirements. Businesses must take proactive steps to safeguard their online identities. To provide protection, guarantee consistency, and handle the expanding complexity of internet jurisprudence in India, a thorough legislative framework, possibly a codified domain name law, is urgently needed.
Related Services
