This page contains a Flash digital edition of a book.
DOMAIN NAMES


Te Internet has become a cornerstone of every establishment, whether commercial organisations, government bodies or institutions. It is used for banking, research, education and entertainment. Te profound use of internet in e-commerce and e-communication has also raised concerns in the realm of intellectual property. Issues of cybersquatting and domain name hijacking have become bones of contention among companies which have invested significant amount of money and time in their marks only to realise that their names and trademarks have been taken up by e-pirates.


As far as proceedings for domain name disputes are concerned, there are jurisdictional difficulties, because the Internet is a global medium. A proceeding will have to be initiated in every country where a country code top level domain (ccTLD) is registered.


Analysis of .INDRP: the background


In response to these issues the .IN Dispute Resolution Policy (.INDRP) was formulated by the .IN Registry for the domain name dispute resolution in India. Te .INDRP claims to be in line with internationally accepted guidelines and relevant provisions of the Indian Information Technology Act 2000. Under the National Internet Exchange of India (NIXI), the .IN Registry functions as an autonomous body with primary responsibility for maintaining the .IN ccTLD and ensuring its operational stability, reliability, and security.


Evaluation of the dispute resolution policy


Proceedings at the .INDRP can be initiated by any person who considers that the registered domain name conflicts with his legitimate rights or interests on the premise that


• the registrant’s domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a name, trademark or service mark in which he has rights; or


• the registrant has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and


• the registrant’s domain name has been registered or is being used in bad faith.


Te registrant is required to submit to a mandatory arbitration proceeding if a complaint is filed.


Te .IN Registry appoints an arbitrator to proceedings in accordance with the Arbitration & Conciliation Act 1996.


Te arbitrator usually considers the domain name registered and used in bad faith in circumstances when:


• the registrant has acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the registration to the owner of the trademark or service mark, or to a competitor of the complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of the registrant’s documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or


• the registrant has registered 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 the registrant has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or


• the registrant has intentionally attempted to attract Internet users to his website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s name or mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the registrant’s website or of a product or service on the registrant’s website.


Figure 1: Domain Name Disputes settled by .INDRP


10 20 30 40 50 60


0 2006 2007 * Up to Aug 3, 2011 Data Source: Dispute case decisions available on .IN Registry’s website 2008 2009 2010 2011* Matters 2001 Pending


www.worldipreview.com


World Intellectual Property Review November/December 2011


53


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100