The Concept Of Cyber Squatting By - Amresh Swarnkar
The Concept Of Cyber Squatting
Authored By - Amresh Swarnkar
Maharashtra National Law University,
Aurangabad.
5th year (9th
Semester student), batch of 2018-23.
META DESCRIPTION
In this particular blog the concept
of cyber squatting has been discussed and the various facets related to it
like-
*What is the concept of Cyber
Squatting
*What is squatting in its literal
sense
*Effects of Cyber Squatting
*Landmark judgement of Yahoo! Inc. v.
Akash Arora and Anr. in the realm of cyber squatting
have also been discussed in order to
make the reader aware about the concept of Cyber Squatting in detail.
INTRODUCTION
This particular blog is on the
subject matter that what is the whole concept of cyber squatting.
In this blog the various facets with
respect to cyber squatting have been covered in order to make the reader aware
of the concept of cyber squatting in detail.
The various facets with respect to
cyber squatting covered in this blog are-
what is the concept of Cyber
Squatting, what is squatting in its literal sense, effects of Cyber Squatting,
landmark judgement of Yahoo! Inc. v. Akash Arora and Anr. in the realm of cyber
squatting.
My findings and
suggestions pertaining to the concept of cyber squatting have been mentioned
and explained in the conclusion of this blog.
Tags/ Keywords associated with the
article:
·
Squatting.
·
Cyber
Squatting.
·
Cyber
Law.
·
Effects
of Cyber Squatting.
·
Domain
names and IPR.
·
Yahoo!
Inc. v. Akash Arora and Anr.
·
Landmark
judgement on Cyber Squatting.
·
Cyber
squatting and its effects.
MAIN BLOG
Cyber Squatting-
It basically refers to the bad faith,
intentional and fraudulent practice of registering, trafficking or using
of an Internet domain name with the
intention of gaining profit from the goodwill of another person’s registered
domain name.
In it people register a similar
sounding domain name to a famous domain name in order to gain unfair profits as
whenever the people will search for some content on the internet many people
getting confused with the domain names will be in a belief that this cyber
squatted domain name also belongs in some way or the other to the famous domain
name hence, will click upon the same and therefore generating unfair profits to
such people involved in cyber squatting as they did nothing to generate their
own goodwill whereas they are just getting undue profits by creating a domain
name similar to the already existing famous domain name.
Squatting in literal sense-
The word squatting in the concept of
Cyber Squatting refers to occupying or using of an unoccupied land, building or
space which the squatter i.e. the person doing so does not own in his name or
does not have the permission to use it.
Similarly cyber squatting is also
somewhere or other related to the use of an unauthorized domain name by the
squatter in order to gain unfair profits for himself.
Terminology of Cyber Squatting-
The term cybersquatting was many
times interchangeably used with different words like ‘cyberpiracy’ , etc. and
there was a dilemma with respect to its accurate and correct meaning so as a
solution to this:
The World Intellectual Property
Organization (WIPO) in its 1999 report gave a particular meaning to the term of
cyber squatting which was-
Abusive
registration of a domain name.
Effects of Cyber Squatting-
1. When a person registers a similar
domain name to that of an established domain name then that person can gain
unfair profits for himself without doing any work for making his own goodwill,
he is enabled by Cyber Squatting to take undue advantage of the goodwill
of an established domain name.
2. Sometimes what the people involved in
cyber squatting do they redirect the visitors of their domain name to unwanted
or unethical websites displaying a totally different content or even at times
showing content related to obscenity, etc.
When such a thing happens the visitor of the page may think
that what all content is being displayed on the website of the real domain name
owner whereas it is not that original site but a cyber squatted site.
Therefore, in this manner such domains tarnish the image of
the famous domain names.
The landmark judgement in India on
Cyber Squatting is that of-
Yahoo! Inc. v.
Akash Arora and Anr.[1]
This case is related to the use of
unauthorized registration or use of domain names which are similar to already
established domain names.
Facts:
In this case a person had registered
his domain name as ‘Yahoo India’ which was similar to the plaintiff’s domain
name of ‘Yahoo!’ which was an already well established domain name since years.
The plaintiff (Yahoo!) filed a case
against the defendant (Yahoo India) in this case.
Decision:
The High Court of Delhi in this case
stated that the domain name of the defendant which is ‘Yahoo India’ has the
ability to create confusion and deceive the internet users into believing that
both are either same or belong to the same original owner of domain name i.e.
‘Yahoo!’.
The
court also held that even if a disclaimer with regards to this is tried to be
given to the people at large by the defendant it would be irrelevant and
insufficient as they both are too much similar and confusing.
The
court also stated that it is irrelevant whether or not the term ‘Yahoo’ in
itself has a distinct meaning as the plaintiff’s site is so much famous since
years that it has required ‘uniqueness’ and ‘distinctiveness’ as required by
the law of trademark.
The High court stated that domain
names are used by business groups in the same fashion as a trademark or service
mark.
So by this judgement it can be
clearly inferred that any domain name which is similar with an already existing
domain name will fall in the category of cyber squatting and will be declared
as unauthorized and the owner of such domain name won’t be allowed to use it
further.
CONCLUSION
In this blog the concept of cyber
squatting has been dealt in detail covering the various aspects of it like-
what is the concept of Cyber Squatting, what is squatting in its literal sense,
effects of Cyber Squatting, landmark judgement of Yahoo! Inc. v. Akash Arora
and Anr. in the realm of cyber squatting.
This particular blog would help the
readers to analyze the concept of cyber squatting as all the various aspects
related to it have been dealt in depth in this blog.
Findings-
1. The concept of cyber squatting
enables the wrongdoers to gain an unfair profit by just using the domain names
which are famous and already existing and the people involved in such wrong
practices don’t need to make a goodwill of their own as they fraudulently use
the goodwill of the already existing domain name.
2. The landmark judgement of Yahoo!
Inc. v. Akash Arora and Anr. clearly stated that
such cyber squatting practices should not be allowed and the user of such
domain names should be unauthorized from using them further as in this case the
Delhi High Court forbid the defendant from using the domain name ‘Yahoo India’
which was identical to that of the plaintiff’s ‘Yahoo!’.
3. The problem which I found out while
researching on this concept of cyber squatting is that why are even people at
the first instance being allowed to use similar domain names to that of already
existing famous domain names as this practice not only promotes cyber squatting
whereas the time of the courts via litigation is also wasted in this regard as
sooner or later that domain name user is going to be declared unauthorized to
use such cyber squatted domain name when a case is filed.
Suggestions-
1. In order to address the problem of
registration of similar or identical domain names by the wrongdoers involved in
cyber squatting there should be a mechanism set by the government which
ensures that at the first instance only when a person tries to register a
domain name which is similar to an already existing famous domain name his
application for such domain name’s registration is discarded.
This will not only help to curb the
practice of cyber squatting whereas it will also help to minimize the
unnecessary litigation which will take place later on when such a case comes to
the court and the court after going through the matter discards the wrongdoer
from using the identical domain name.
So, if at the end the court is not
going to allow the wrongdoer to use the identical domain name why not after
scrutinizing the application initially reject the registration of such domain
name at the first instance itself.
REFERENCES
* Information Technology Act, 2000
* All India Reporter
* Cyber Security law book by Pavan
Duggal
* Cyber law and IT Protection book by
Harish Chander
* www.scconline.com