Techno-Legal Interplay of Domain Names: A Study with Reference to India

Authors: M. Tariq Banday, Farooq A. Mir

Abstract:

Internet has unfolded its potential and its users are now quite convinced that it is a cost effective, flexible, efficient and viable option to carry out different business activities disregard of any physical or geographical boundaries. These intrinsic properties of Internet have raised innumerable legal issues that are difficult to resolve within the boundaries of existing legal régime which has a different scheme of things. Internet has impacted most of the branches of law more particularly Intellectual property jurisprudence which has engendered many IP issues including interplay of trademark and domain names. There is neither any separate legislation nor any express provision in the existing Trademark Act, 1999, which is relatively recent in origin and enacted at the time when theses issued had seized the attention of the courts in other jurisdictions. A host of legal issues cropped by the intersection of trademark and domain names which have been left for the courts to decide. The courts in India have seized this opportunity and have laid down a number of principles. This paper appraises approaches adopted by Indian courts in resolving domain name disputes and compares them with theories evolved and established in other jurisdictions.

Keywords: DNS, Domain Name, Trademarks, Passing off and Judicial Approach.

Digital Object Identifier (DOI): doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1091116

References:

[1] C.M. Kozierok, "The TCP/IP Guide: A Comprehensive, Illustrated Internet Protocols Reference,” No Starch Press, 1st Ed., ISBN-13: 978-1593270476, Oct. 2005.
[2] Committee on Internet Navigation and the Domain Name System: Technical Alternatives and Policy Implications and National Research Council, "Signposts in Cyberspace: The Domain Name System and Internet Navigation”, National Academies Press, ISBN-13: 978-0309096409, Jul 2005.
[3] S.P. Singh and R. Maini, "Review of Domain Name System”. IJCA Proceedings on National Workshop-Cum-Conference on Recent Trends in Mathematics and Computing 2011 RTMC (9), May 2012. Published by Foundation of Computer Science, New York, USA.
[4] A.J. Kalafut, "Touring DNS Open Houses for Trends and Configurations,” IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking, 19 (6), pp, 1666 – 1675, 2011, doi: 10.1109/TNET.2011.2130537.
[5] M.T. Banday, "Recent Developments in the Domain Name System,” International Journal of Computer Applications, 31 (2), pp. 18-25, 2011, doi: 10.5120/3796-5227.
[6] ICANN, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, http://www.icann.org
[7] A. Friedlander, A, Mankin, W. D. Maughan. "DNSSEC: A Protocol toward Securing the Internet Infrastructure”, Communications of the ACM - Smart business networks, 50 (6), pp. 44 – 50, June 2007.
[8] J. Klensin, "Internationalized Domain Names for Applications (IDNA): Definitions and Document Framework”, Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), RFC 5890, August, 2010, https://www3.tools.ietf.org/ html/ rfc5890.
[9] ICANN, "New gTDL Programme,” Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/ program-en.htm.
[10] B.W. Borchert, "Imminent Domain Name: The Technological Land-Grab and ICANN's Lifting of Domain Name Restrictions,” Valparaiso University Law Review, 45 (2), pp. 505-549, 2011.
[11] W.R. Cornish., "Intellectual Property,” (Reprint 1995) at P 399.
[12] GOI,, "The Trademark Act 1999”, The Gazette of India Extraordinary, 47(2)(z) (b), http://ipindia.nic.in/tmr_new/tmr_act_rules/ TMRAct_New.pdf.
[13] Automatic Electric Limited. v. R.K. Dhawan and Anr. 1999 PTC (91) 81.
[14] J.R. Kapoor v. M/s Micronix. India (1994) 3 SCALE 732.
[15] Bhart Enterprises v. C. Lall Gopi Industries Enterprises and Ors 1999 PTC (19) 598, AIR 1999 P H 231, (1999) 122 PLR 121, http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/1092552/.
[16] Sant Kumar Mehra v. Ram Lakhan 1999. PTC (19) 307, 1999 IIAD Delhi 804, 79 (1999) DLT 221, (1999) 122 PLR 23, http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1413625/.
[17] Amrutanjan Ltd. v. Mehta Unani Pharmacy & Co. 1999 PTC (19) 514.
[18] Plast India Foundation v. Ajeet Singh & Anr 2002 (25) PTC 71, 2002 (95) DLT 235.
[19] Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. Indohemic Health Specialties Pvt. Ltd. 2002 (24) PTC (Bom) 510.
[20] GOI, "The Trademark Act 1999”, The Gazette of India Extraordinary, 47(2) section 25, http://ipindia.nic.in/tmr_new/tmr_act_rules/ TMRAct_New.pdf.
[21] T1 Diamond Chain Ltd v. Santokh Singh 2004 (28) PTC (Delhi) 400.
[22] Smith Kline Beecham Plc V. Lalithbhai Patel 2004 (28) PTC (Delhi) 330.
[23] Hawkins Cookers Ltd v. Rakesh Kumar and Mukesh Kumar &Ors 2005 (30) PTC (Delhi) 375.
[24] Time Incorporated v. Lakes Srivastava 2005 (30) PTC (Delhi) 3.
[25] Routh v. Webster (1847) 10 Bear 561.
[26] Bristol Conservation Ltd v. Conservatories Custom Built Ltd (1989) RPC 455.
[27] C. Wadlow, "The Law of Passing Off”, Sweet & Maxwell, Limited, 1997.
[28] Erven Warnink B.V. v. J. Townend & Sons (Hull) Ltd., (1979) AC 731, (1980) R.P.C. 31.
[29] Daimler Benz Aktiegesellschaft and Anr v. Hybo Hindustan, AIR 1994Delhi 239, 1994 RLR 79, http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1460548/.
[30] W. McDonald Daniel et al, "Intellectual Property and the Internet,” COMPUTER, Dec. 1996 at 8, 8.
[31] D. W. Swartz, "The Limitations of Trademark Law in Addressing Domain Name Disputes”, 45 UCLA Law Review, Rev. 1487, 1998.
[32] F.A. Mir, M.T. Banday, "Mechanics of Domain Names and Indian Judicial Approach to their Disputes: A Study”, in proc. of World Congress on Information and Communication Technologies (WICT 2011) 11-14 Dec. 2011, pp. 176-188, published by IEEE.
[33] The Titan Industries Limited v. Prashanth Koorapati and Ors, Delhi High court suit No. 179 of 1998 Decision dated 28 Jan 1998.
[34] YahooInc. v. Akash Arora and Netlink Internet Services, 1999 PTC (19) 201, 1999 IIAD Delhi 229, 78 (1999) DLT 285, http://www.indiankanoon.org/docfragment/1741869/?formInput=yahoo%20inc.%20%20doctypes%3A%20delhi.
[35] GOI, "The Trade and Merchandise Marks Act”, The Gazette of India, 1958, Act No. 43, 1958, http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1005493/.
[36] Neev Investment & Trading Pvt. Ltd. v. Sasdia Express Couriers, 1993 PTC 184.
[37] Ellora Industries v. BanarsiDass&Ors, 1981 PTC 46.
[38] Marks & Spencer v. One in a Millions, 1998 FSR 265.
[39] Jews for Jesus v. Broadsky, 64 USPQ 2d 1652.
[40] N. R. Dongre v. Whirlpool Corp., 1996 PTC 583.
[41] Rediff Communication Ltd v. Cyber booth and another, 2000 PTC 209.
[42] American Civil Liberties Union v. Reno, 929-F Supp. 842, 830, 845.
[43] Marks and Spencer PIC v. One in a Million, 1998 FSR 265.
[44] Cardservice International Inc v. McGee, 42 USPQ 2nd 1850.
[45] Arkiebologet v. Volvo Steels Ltd 1998 PTC (18) 17.
[46] Montari v. Montari Industries ltd 1996 PTC 142.
[47] Kirloskar v. Kirloskar Property ltd, AIR 1996 Bom. 149.
[48] Online India Capital Co Pvt. Ltd & Anr v. Dimensions Corporate, 2000 PTC 396.
[49] Office Clearing Services Ltd. v. West minister Windows and General Cleaners Ltd, LXIII RPC 39.
[50] J. R. Kapoor v. Micronix India 1994 Supp (3) Sec 215.
[51] Lloyd Insulations (India) limited v. Punj Lloyd Insulations, Pvt. Ltd. 1999 PTC 449.
[52] Tata Sons limited v. Manu Kosuri & Ors, 2001 IIIAD Delhi 545, 90 (2001) DLT 659, http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/542243/.
[53] Acqua Minerals limited v. Pramod Bose &Anr, AIR 2001 Delhi 463, 2001 PTC 619.
[54] http://www.icann.org.udrp-rules-24
[55] StyamInfowayLtd. v. Sifynet Solutions Pvt. Ltd. (2004 (28) PTC 566 (SC).
[56] Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories ltd v. Manu Kosuri & Ors (2001 PTC 859).
[57] International Association of Lions Club v. National Association of Indian Lions, 2002 (25) PTC 84.
[58] Info Edge (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Shailesh Gupta, 2002 (24) PTC 355.
[59] J. McCarthy, "McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition”, Legal Solutions, Thomas Reuters, Vol. 2 3rd Edition, 1998.
[60] Styam Info way Ltd. v. Sifynet Solutions Pv.t Ltd., 2004 (28) PTC 566 (SC).
[61] Avery Dennison Corp v. Sumpton, 189 F 3d 868, 980 (9th Cir, 1999).
[62] Enterprises International Inc. v. Global Site Design, Inc, 1999 W. L. 311707 at 2.
[63] Washington Speakers Bureau, Inc. v. Leading Authorities, Inc., 33 F. Sup. 2d at 501.
[64] TATA Sons limited and Anr v. Fashion ID limited, 2005 (30) PTC 182.
[65] Zee Telefilms Ltd. & Ors v. Zee Kathmandu & Ors, 2006 (32) PTC 470