The Cyber Battle: Why India Needs a Stronger Cybersquatting Legal Firewall in The Wake of The Jio Hotstar Domain Clash

Introduction

The Jio Hotstar domain saga has once again ignited the debate around domain cybersquatting. For those unaware, a Delhi-based app developer acquired the domain name “Jio Hotstar”, based on the speculated merger between two major streaming giants- Jio Cinema and Hotstar in late 2024. The anonymous person, through the website, displayed a message requesting Reliance, the parent company of Jio Cinema to sponsor and assist his education in exchange for as the domain name he had acquired, which the latter may be interested in considering their merger. The officials at Reliance, declining the request, said that they would initiate a legal battle against the person for trademark infringement. This incident had the internet divided, while a majority of people supported the web-developer, a significant number of people called this cybersquatting- an extortion, outright infringement of Intellectual Property and illegal. This discourse has reiterated the need for a robust legal framework to deal with this issue.

Cybersquatting in India

The term cybersquatting refers to the practice where an individual acquires the domain name identical to the trademark of a famous company, brand, or individual with the intention of later selling it to the individual or corporation for a higher price, or to use the goodwill of such trademark for garnering profits through such domain. With the emergence and growth of commerce and trade on the internet, protecting website trademark has become an important issue to address. Simply put, an act of obtaining fraudulent registration with an intent to sell the domain name to the lawful owner of the name at premium is called “cybersquatting”.

In India, Cybersquatting is not defined under any act, however, it is currently protected under The Trade Marks Act of 1999, owing to the absence of any dedicated legislation for the said act. The Apex Court in the case of Satyam Infoway Ltd. v. Siffynet Solutions (P) Ltd. highlighted this lack of framework. However, the jurisprudence for protection of domain as a trademark has been largely drawn from the various courts’ rulings on the matter. The essentials of Cybersquatting can be made out in Indian context with the help of such rulings.

A registration of domain can be said to have constituted cybersquatting if and when there is a bad faith registration made only to earn illegally; a confusing similarity in domain names; mala fide intent to make profit belonging to someone else; and a lack of legitimate interest. Thus, any such act which qualifies as cybersquatting is punishable under Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

Global Scenario

Cybersquatting has become a global menace with the increase in dependency on online presence for various brands. As per World Intellectual Property Rights Organisation (WIPO), more than 50,000 cases of cybersquatting were registered by 2020.

As a measure to tackle cybersquatting, the Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy (“UDRP”) has been formulated by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). The UDPR policy was created as a framework to handle the majority of domain-based disputes and cybersquatting issues, which can be settled by arbitration, court litigation, or agreement. The policy lays out legal guidelines and clauses about abusive domain name registration between the registrant and a third party. However, India does not adhere to UDPR and rather uses “.in Dispute Resolution Policy (INDRP)” which sets out the terms and conditions to resolve a dispute between the Registrant and the Complainant, arising out of the registration and use of a ".in" Internet Domain Name.

Challenges in The Current Legal Framework

The current legal framework is not provided with adequate safeguards to tackle the issues of cybersquatting. Although various countries have introduced separate laws to deal with the issue of cybersquatting. For instance, the United States has a dedicated legislation Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA) to deal with the issues of cybersquatting, The Act not only punishes the offender but also mandates to transfer the domain name to the rightful owner, something which is not explicitly present in Indian laws, thereby causing ambiguity and possible infringement of rights.

The Trademark Act, 1999 also does not adequately provide adequate safeguards for the protection of domain names. The Trademark Act is the primary legislation for the infringement of trademark and domain infringement because once an entity has registered a domain, it asserts a right over that domain and no one has the right to use one’s registered trademark without prior permission. If the impugned trademark owner believes, that a particular domain is completely similar to their registered domain, it will create a likelihood of confusion among the general public, then one can object to that domain under Sec. 11 of the Trademarks Act. For instance, in Yahoo Inc v. Akash Arora, the plaintiff Yahoo had a well-known trademark over Yahoo and registered domain “www.yahoo.com”. The defendant Akash Arora started providing similar services under the domain “www.yahooindia.com”. The court held that since they are offering similar services, the domain will create a likelihood of confusion since they are phonetically, and visually similar, the defendant is liable for the domain infringement.

However, since the Trade Marks Act is limited to a specific area, it might not provide sufficient domain name protection. Nevertheless, the statute disregards the issue of cybersquatting and domain name disputes. Cybersquatting domains are not sufficiently protected because they may be regarded as trademarks based on their usage and brand recognition. In India, the courts have punished the cybersquatters, where it was evident that the cybersquatters intended to exploit the goodwill of an individual. For instance, in the case Arun Jaitley v. Network Solutions Pvt. Ltd. and Others, where the defendant registered the domain “www.arunjaitley.com” named after the politician Arun Jaitley. The Court held that since the defendant is trying to deal in bad faith by asking Mr. Arun Jaitley to pay huge money for purchasing the domain from the auction constitutes unfair trade means and therefore awarded punitive damages to discourage the trafficking of the domain names in the future.

A person registers a domain priorly just with the anticipation that the domain will be bought by an individual or a company for a particular purpose and the person can sell the domain later on and earn a huge amount of money. However, the intent of the person is completely malicious whose sole purpose is to earn money without offering any services through the domain. This puts huge pressure on the companies to purchase the domain at a higher cost, so as to reduce the likelihood of confusion among the general public and to protect the goodwill of the company. A cap needs to be placed to prevent malicious people from buying the unregistered domain that has a possibility of being registered in the very near future for a particular purpose. This also acts as a constraint for Ease of Doing Business where the companies are not able to start their businesses due to the non-availability of certain domains.

India also has Information Technology, 2000 for matters concerning cybercrimes and are thereto dealt with. However, the statute only stipulates that the investigative agencies have the same authority as that enshrined in the BNSS. Given the particulars of cybercrimes especially cybersquatting which can be done from any part of the world, these capabilities are typically insufficient. Investigating cybercrimes presents several challenges, such as the matter of jurisdiction, geographical determinacy, privacy violations throughout the investigation, and a lack of suitable investigating machinery. Nearly every investigative agency in the globe is concerned about these challenges.

Conclusion

The dispute around the Jio Hotstar domain is a classic case of cybersquatting, wherein a person speculated a future merger between two large streaming sites and bought a domain that is a trademark of those organisations, to earn money out of it.

However, the conversation around these hints at a larger question- the need for a dedicated legislation or legal framework for cybersquatting, which poses a major threat owing to loss of revenue, reputation and market disruption. Indubitably, it may be apprehended that the problem of cybersquatting for increase exponentially with the trend of e-commerce and the online presence of all major brands. A dedicated framework would diminish ambiguity and grey areas in law and make it a faster and more efficient procedure while improving the ease of business in India, something the government has put a spotlight on for years.

The present laws in India, though deal with cybersquatting through the Trade Mark Act, which may be insufficient as they fail to define, explain and list out the elements of the act. Separate legislation would ensure deterrence and a separate punishment along with a transparent procedure for dealing with such cyber-crimes, adding India to the list of the developed countries that have separate legislation to deal with cybersquatting.