The Web Of Cybersquatting: Are Laws Needed To Clean Up The Web?


The internet’s unavoidable presence and use in our daily lives is the pinnacle of modern technological innovation. However, this progress has also served as a breeding environment for a variety of illegal activities. Cybersquatting is one such activity that has gained interntaional and national attention.


Cybersquatting is defined as registering, trafficking, or using a domain name in bad faith with an intention to profit from the trademark holder’s goodwill, as defined by the Anti cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, 1999, it is also known as domain squatting. The word comes from the phrase “squatting,” which refers to inhabiting an abandoned place or land that is not the squatter’s own. Most of the time, the cybersquatter sells the domain name at a premium to the firm or individual who owns the trademark.


A domain name is the name of a website as well as the address through which it may be accessed. Domain names are typically madeup of characters or phrases that are easier for the general public to remember.

  • WWW – refers to World Wide Web
  • Trademark name – The name that a corporation or an individual chooses for their website, which is usually similar to their trademark and often refers to the company’s name
  • .in – Indicates the country in which the company is based. For instance,‘.in’ designates a corporation based in India;‘.ca’, on the other hand, alludes to a firm based in Canada.

In India, cases such as Rediff Communications Ltd v Cyberbooth have highlighted the importance of a domain name’s protection, declaring that “a domain name is more than an internet address and is entitled to the same trademark protection as a brand.”

This blog critically examines the many types of cybersquatting, as well as the present legal scenario of cybersquatting in India, with relevant examples, instances, and illustrations. In addition, this blog makes recommendations for how the Indian legislature and judiciary should deal with cybersquatting cases.


“The rising number of alleged cybersquatting cases shows the growing premium placed on domain names by companies and individuals operating in the wired environment” – Francis Gurry

The threat of cybersquatting was raised in the late 1990s when the internet was just becoming a global sensation. Most firms were unconcerned about the commercial and economic potential offered by the internet during this time. Cybersquatters bought the domain names of well-known companies with the intention of selling them to the concerned company. Early victims of cybersquatting included Panasonic, Hertz, Fry’s Electronics, and Avon.


  1. Domain Name Squatting, This is the practice of buying a well-known company’s domain name to extort money from the parent firm.
    In Satyam Infoway Ltd. v. Sifynet Solutions Pvt. Ltd, the respondent obtained the domain names and, which were confusingly similar to the plaintiff’s The Supreme Court held that “Domain names are commercial identifiers, serving to identify and distinguish the firm itself or its goods and services, as well as to define its associated online address”.
  1. Identity Theft, domain names are acquired for a fixed period, after which they expire if they are not re-registered. When a domain name expires, a cyber squatter can use software tools to register it. Alert angling and extension exaggeration are two methods of Domain Name identity theft.
  2. Uniform Resource Locator Hijacking, commonly known as Typosquatting. If any typographical errors are made while typing the web URL into the browser, it is forwarded to a substitute website that is utilized by cybersquatters to make money. For instance, Google’s typosquatting site installed malware on visitors’ computers. The malware displayed pornographic pictures in spam pop-ups and downloaded SpySheriff antivirus, which damaged victims’ machines.
  3. Name-Jacking, In this type of squatting, an individual’s name is acquired as a top-level Domain Name.


The World Wrestling Federation (WWF) sued a Californian individual for registering the domain name “” and offering to sell it to WWF at an inflated price, in the first known case of cybersquatting. The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) decided that the registered domain name was identical to the WWF brand and could cause confusion. The resident was also urged to transfer his or her registration to WWF.

The Anti cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act of 1999 governs incidents of cybersquatting in the United States. There is presently no legislation in effect in India that addresses or addresses the issue of cybersquatting. In Satyam Infoway Ltd v Sifynet Solutions, the court recognized the lack of legislation in India for cybersquatting dispute settlement. The Indian judiciary, on the other hand, has been proactive in providing remedies in domain name infringement cases.

1) In the case of Yahoo! Inc. v Akash Arora and Anr, where the respondents were using the domain name “,” which was identical to the plaintiff’s trademark “Yahoo,” one of the most significant verdicts on trademark passing off through domain names were handed down. The respondents, on the other hand, claimed that the services offered did not meet the definition of goods under the Indian Trademark Act. Yahoo, on the other hand, was granted an injunction since web services are regarded as goods worldwide.

2) In the case of Reddif Communication Limited v Cyberbooth and Anr, the respondent had registered the domain name “,” which was identical to the plaintiff’s domain name “” The court recognized the domain name as a registered trademark. In this case, the court ruled in favor of the petitioner, finding that a domain name is a valuable company asset.

3) Following in the footsteps of WIPO in the Reddif case and SBI Cards v Domain Active Property Ltd, Indian courts have ordered the infringing party to surrender the domain name to the original trademark owners. Tata Sons Ltd. V Mr. Manu Kishori is one of the most notable cases for this, in which the defendant had a domain name registered in the plaintiff’s name and was compelled to surrender the name to the plaintiff.


The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) established the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) to resolve disputes over the registration of internet domain names. Further,as India is a signatory to the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), it is required to follow the UDRP process. As a result, India has developed an Indian Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (INDRP) with UDRP-compliant standards. INDRP has several provisions that are comparable to UDRP. The following are some of the salient qualities of the same:

  • Appointment of arbitrator for disputes regarding domain names;
  • Conduction of Arbitration proceedings should be according to the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
  • The Arbitrator in the caseshould pass a reasonable award within 60 days from commencement of arbitration proceedings
  • Arbitrator shall give reasons for the award

The case of YouTube LLC v. Rohit Kohli, in which the respondent registered the domain name “,” was a notable one brought under the INDRP’s purview. The trademark in the domain namebelongs to a corporation called “YouTube.” The Board found that the domain name was phonetically and conceptually similar to the complainant’s trademark and hence granted the domain name transfer to the trademark’s original owner.

In addition, a few clauses of the Information Technology Act of 2000 and the Indian Penal Code of 1860 may apply in the event of cybersquatting in India. The following are some suchprovisions:

  1. Forgery under Section 469 of the IPC: A person found forging with the intent to harm the reputation of any party, or knowing that the document forged will be used for that purpose, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term that may extend to three years, as well as a fine.
  2. Section 66 of the Information Technology Act of 1999: Under this provision, any person who commits any act referred to in section 43 dishonestly or fraudulently is punishable by imprisonment for a term up to three years, a fine up to five lakh rupees, or both.
  3. Section 66A: This clause punishes anyone who uses a computer resource or communication device to convey “grossly offensive” or “menacing” material.


A five-pronged approach to cybersquatting can be used to combat the problem:

  1. New Legislation: We are now in the third decade of the twenty-first century, and the internet is widely used. There are no unique laws in India that regulate or oversee cybersquatting. Cybersquatting should be governed by a separate law that regulates and governs the concept of cybersquatting. Furthermore, there are no set remedies or penalties for cybersquatting; until today, incidents of cybersquatting were determined on an individual basis, according to the judge’s view. Some of the following points must be included in the proposed legislation:
    • Recognition of domain name as a registered trademark
    • Remedies for passing off
    • Remedies such astransferring of the domain name including the original trademark to the original trademark holder
  2. Independent Adjudicatory Body: At present, cybersquatting cases are handled by the courts, but there is no distinct body to handle cybersquatting cases. The government should establish tribunals to deal with cybersquatting cases, and the judges who are appointed should be experts in the field. This would not only assist in dealing with cybersquatting issues with a high level of skill, but it would also relieve the judiciary of the weight of cases. It will also aid in the quick resolution of cases.
  3. Judicial activism in cybersquatting and trademark issues under the Trademark Act of 1999: At present, the courts are taking a proactive approach to cases of cybersquatting and are well aware of the threat that cybersquatting poses. With the rise in internet usage in the coming years, stringent measures from the judiciary would be required to combat cybersquatting, as there are currently no specific laws for cybersquatting in India.

Cybersquatting is a virus for which an effective antidote in the form of effective legislation is urgently needed; otherwise, the infection would encourage cybersquatters to prey on susceptible Domain Name Holders. When considering the current state of affairs around the world, cybersquatting is seen as a threat that has no bounds. Although WIPO’s effective and proactive involvement has played a critical role in resolving domain name disputes and developing clear rules in this field, much more must be done in the Indian legal framework to combat cybersquatting. The judiciary must perform an effective role by interpreting the laws in a way that best reflects the organic nature of the state.

Author: Vaidehi- a student of Symbiosis Law School, Pune, currently an intern  at Khurana & Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorney,  in case of any queries please contact/write back to us via email

Leave a Reply



  • June 2024
  • May 2024
  • April 2024
  • March 2024
  • February 2024
  • January 2024
  • December 2023
  • November 2023
  • October 2023
  • September 2023
  • August 2023
  • July 2023
  • June 2023
  • May 2023
  • April 2023
  • March 2023
  • February 2023
  • January 2023
  • December 2022
  • November 2022
  • October 2022
  • September 2022
  • August 2022
  • July 2022
  • June 2022
  • May 2022
  • April 2022
  • March 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • September 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010