HOW CYBERSQUATTING IS AN EMERGING THREAT TO TRADEMARK?

In today’s digital era where everything depends on a single click, internet has become a vital part of our daily lives. It is not only used in educational institutions but in business prospects also. Lots of businesses however small or large, uses the internet as a medium to maintain their online presence in the market and among the targeted audience. The rapid increase in online activities gave rise to a new form of intellectual property infringement called Cybersquatting, also known as Domain squatting. 

 

Meaning and concept of Cybersquatting:

 

Cybersquatting is the practice of illegally registering, trafficking in, or using a domain name with the intent of generating profit from the goodwill associated to the trademark of any other person. The cybersquatter uses that domain name without having legal rights and sells it at an inflated price. It is one form of intellectual property right infringement and has a significant threat to the brand owners.

Cybersquatting posing as an emerging threat to trademarks:

Due to rise in digital presence of brands, exploiting brand identities and diverting traffic to unauthorized websites, cybersquatting is an emerging threat to trademarks and their owners.

Later on, these domains are used for various malicious activities like collecting user data by creating fake surveys, phishing, scams, and fraud. Due to this, the number of cybercrimes is surging every hour. It also creates confusion for consumers as they encounter websites with domain names identical to existing, well-reputed trademarks. It impacts a brand’s reputation negatively due to showcasing low-quality content. It also damages their public reputation and breaches their data. Generally, customers lose confidence in such a reputed brand, and ultimately, they lose customer loyalty. Reduction of sales and loss in revenue is also one of the major consequences of cybersquatting, as customers unknowingly transact with fake websites by assuming them to be reputed ones which in turn makes it difficult for the actual holders of a trademark to reclaim that brand.

Governing laws for Cybersquatting of trademark in India

In India, there is no legislation that specifically governs cybersquatting, but there are some enactments that include the punishments and remedies for cybersquatting cases.

In order to resolve disputes over the registration of internet domain names, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) established the (UDRP) Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy. Being a signatory to the (WIPO) World Intellectual Property Organization, India has to follow the process of UDRP. Thus, in compliance with the standards of UDRP, India has developed an Indian domain name dispute resolution policy (INDRP).

In addition, there are some provisions for cases of cybersquatting provided under the Indian Penal Code 1860 and the Information Technology Act 2000. It includes:

Forgery under Section 469 of the IPC provides that if a person, with the intent to harm the reputation of any person, forges the documents, he shall be punished with imprisonment that may exceed 3 years and a fine as well.

Sections 66 and 66A of the Information Technology Act of 1999 provide punishment for committing dishonest acts as mentioned under Section 43 and using any computer resource for conveying grossly offensive or menancing material.

CASELAWS:

YAHOO INC. V/S AKASH ARORA

It was the first cybersquatting case spotted in India. In that case, a person named Akash Arora registered a brand called Yahoo.com that was identical to an existing domain, i.e., Yahoo Inc.'s. In counter, Yahoo Inc. filed a case against Mr. Akash, requesting an order against the respondent. It was ruled by the Delhi High Court that the respondent has no right to use Yahoo as it will infringe Yahoo Inc.'s copyright. It was observed in that case that, due to the addition of the word India and its similarity with the domain name, it may increase the chances of misleading consumers.

Tata Sons Ltd vs. Ramadasoft

In this case, the defendant had a domain name registered under the name Tata. It was held in this case that domain names not only involve addresses but also the trademarks of the companies. The domain names in this case were similar to the plaintiff’s trademark, and the defendant had used the names with mala fide intention. These facts entitled the defendant to transfer the domain names in the favor of the plaintiff.

In the nutshell, due to the rapid increase in cybersquatting threats, it crucially highlights the need for proactive brand protection strategies. Cybersquatting can be combated by monitoring and enforcing efforts to eliminate illicit activities digitally and safeguard brand equity. Strict laws are required in this field to punish squatters and avoid these crimes in future. Legal remedies should be given to service mark and the trademark owners to protect them against Defendants who obtain domain name with mala fide intentions. The plaintiffs should have an option of obtaining statutory damages this will act as an important tool for the trademark holders in protecting their intellectual property in the online world.