Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Legislation for Domain Name Registration: A Requirement in Globalisation

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Contemporary Issues in International Law

  • 1259 Accesses

Abstract

The purpose of this chapter is first to examine and to comment on the basic issues related to domain names; secondly to look at the trends in the case law in the US and to highlight a number of the issues that flow from them; thirdly to explain the policies of the regulatory bodies and deficiencies regarding the same; fourthly to discuss the policy structure of the Indian counterpart and lastly the need for legislation for the domain name is emphasised.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Chris Reed, Internet Law- Text and Material, (Cambridge University Press, 2nd ed., 2004) at 41.

  2. 2.

    Passing off action in Law of Torts.

  3. 3.

    The Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, 1883, as revised at Brussels on December 14, 1900, at Washington, on June 2, 1911, at The Hague on November 6, 1925, at London on June 2, 1934, at Lisbon on October 31, 1958, and at Stockholm on July 14, 1967, and as amended on September 28, 1979.

  4. 4.

    Since December 1999, the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Centre have administered over 27,000 proceedings, primarily in the generic Top-Level Domains gTLD . available at: http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/.

  5. 5.

    Hermes International v. Yuanyuan Deng/Deng Yuan, Case No. D2011-0001, WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center, Administrative Panel Decision.

  6. 6.

    Nationbanc Montgomary Securities LLC Application, 2000 ETMR 245.

  7. 7.

    Interstellar Starship Services Ltd. v. Epix Inc. Civ. No. 97-107-FR (D Or, 1997).

  8. 8.

    This is popularly called either domain name hijacking or cyber squatting.

  9. 9.

    It is named as reverse domain name hijacking.

  10. 10.

    This category is named as typosquatters. A common misspelling of the intended site, a misspelling based on typing errors, a differently phrased domain name and a different top-level domain. Sometimes, the typosquatters will use the false addresses to distribute viruses, adware, spyware or other malware. Some are also shock sites. More common are benign domain parking sites, selling advertising to firms based on keywords similar to the misspelled word in the domain.

  11. 11.

    Country code top-level domain names, each of these domains bears a two letter country code standard 3166 of the international standards organisation (ISO: 3166).

  12. 12.

    Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) is a non-profit organisation incorporated in California in US founded in 1998 for managing internet protocol numbers and domain name system root, available at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICANN.

  13. 13.

    Global Projects Management v. Citigroup [2005] EWHC 2663(ch).

  14. 14.

    The text of UDRP is available at: http://www.icann.org/udrp/udrp-policy-24oct99.htm/.

  15. 15.

    Ibid.

  16. 16.

    Id., Para 5, 15(a).

  17. 17.

    Supra note 5.

  18. 18.

    Jeanette Winterson v. Mark Hogarth (2000), Case No. D2000-0235, available at: http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2000/d2000-0235.html.

  19. 19.

    WIPO Case No. D2000-5-0505.

  20. 20.

    Especially names like geographical names or generic names are not registrable under the trademark law. Use of one’s own name or descriptive or satirical use of trade mark is allowed as defenses under trade mark law.

  21. 21.

    Asda Case, Case No. D2002-0857.

  22. 22.

    Parisi v. Netlearning Inc. (2001) 139 F. Supp. 2d 745 (E.D. Va. 2001).

  23. 23.

    Report of the Second WIPO internet domain name process, 2001, available at: http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/processes/process2/.

  24. 24.

    Intellectual Property on the Internet: A Survey of the Issues, available at: http://www.wipo.int/copyright/en/ecommerce/ip_survey/.

  25. 25.

    Pankaj Kumar, “An Analysis of Domain Name System And Disputes Involved”, available at: http://www.articlesbase.com/intellectual-property-articles/domain-name-system-and-disputes-involved-1242577.htmls.

  26. 26.

    Minnesota Mining and Mfg. Co. v. Taylor, 21 F. Supp. 2d 1003, 1005 (D. Minn. 1998), Card Service Int’l, Inc. v. Mc Gee, 950 F. Supp. 737, 743 (E.D. Va. 1997), Intermatic, 947 F. Supp. at 1239, 1241.

  27. 27.

    The Lanham Act, 15 USC 1114(1), 1125(c), 1125(a), Section 32(1), 43(c), 43 (a).

  28. 28.

    The Anti-Cyber Squatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA), Section 1125(d).

  29. 29.

    Supra note 27, Section 43(d).

  30. 30.

    In determining whether the domain name registrant has a bad faith intent to profit, a court may consider many factors, including nine that are outlined in the statute:

    1. The registrant’s trademark or other intellectual property rights in the domain name;

    2. Whether the domain name contains the registrant’s legal or common name;

    3. The registrant’s prior use of the domain name in connection with the bona fide offering of goods or services;

    4. The registrant’s bona fide noncommercial or fair use of the mark in a site accessible by the domain name;

    5. The registrant’s intent to divert customers from the mark owner’s online location that could harm the goodwill represented by the mark, for commercial gain or with the intent to tarnish or disparage the mark;

    6. The registrant’s offer to transfer, sell, or otherwise assign the domain name to the mark owner or a third party for financial gain, without having used the mark in a legitimate site;

    7. The registrant’s providing misleading false contact information when applying for registration of the domain name;

    8. The registrant’s registration or acquisition of multiple domain names that are identical or confusingly similar to marks of others; and

    9. The extent to which the mark in the domain is distinctive or famous. See 15 U.S.C. §1125(d)(1)(B).

  31. 31.

    There are four legitimate use defences.

    a. The trademark or other intellectual property rights of the person, if any, in the domain name;

    b. The extent to which the domain name consists of the legal name of the person or a name that is otherwise commonly used to identify that person;

    c. The person’s prior use, if any, of the domain name in connection with the bona fide offering of any goods or services; and

    d. The person’s bona fide non-commercial or fair use of the mark in a site accessible under the domain name.

    See for details http://www.cybertelecom.org/dns/acpa1.htm#bad.

  32. 32.

    Ibid.

  33. 33.

    The cyber squatting is a typical phenomenon where the opportunistic persons exploit the loophole in the registration process of the domain name. The desirability of same mark for the domain name is responsible for the disputes as there can be many business houses under the same trademark and the domain names can only be unique. As registration for domain name is on first come first served basis and trade mark owners have no prior right to a domain name incorporating their mark. Hence, there are disputes between trade mark owners and registrants. This opportunity is seized by a number of people who had registered domain names which were famous/well-known trade marks before the concerned business houses could register them. This aimed at either getting profit by selling the same to the concerned business houses or to exploit reputation of well known brands for the promotion of own business. This is popularly called either domain name hijacking or cyber squatting.

  34. 34.

    Available at: http://definitions.uslegal.com/r/reverse-domain-name-hijacking/.

  35. 35.

    Anti-Cybersquatting Piracy Act (ACPA), Lanham Act, Section 43(d),15 U.S.C. S. 1125(d), available at: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/property00/domain/legislation.html.

  36. 36.

    Thomas R. Lee, “In Re m Jurisdiction In Cyberspace”,75 Wash. L. Rev., 2000 at 97.

  37. 37.

    World Intellectual Property Org., Final Report of the WIPO Internet Domain Name Process, 1999 at 131, available at: http://ecommerce.wipo.int/domains/process/eng/final_report.html.

  38. 38.

    Ibid.

  39. 39.

    Porsche Cars N. Am., Inc. v. PORSCH.COM 51 F. Supp. 2d 707 (E.D. Va. 1999) (No. Civ. A. 99-0006-A).

  40. 40.

    Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714, 727 (1877).

  41. 41.

    International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945).

  42. 42.

    Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 414 (1984).

  43. 43.

    Ibid.

  44. 44.

    The Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act; 28 U.S.C. 1655 (1994).

  45. 45.

    Pub. L. No. 106-113, 113 Stat. 1501 (1999).

  46. 46.

    The statute reads: The owner of a mark may file an in rem civil action against a domain name in the judicial district in which the domain name registrar is located if-(1) the domain name violates any right of the owner of a mark registered in the Patent and Trademark Office; and (2) the court finds that the owner-(I) is not able to obtain in personam jurisdiction over a person who would have been a defendant in a civil action under paragraph (1); or(II) through due diligence was not able to find a person who would have been a defendant in a civil action under paragraph (1) by-(aa) sending a notice of the alleged violation and intent to proceed under this paragraph to the registrant of the domain name at the postal and e-mail address provided by the registrant to the registrar; and (bb) publishing notice of the action as the court may direct promptly after filing the action. Pub. L. No. 106-113, _ 3002, 113 Stat. 1501, 1537 (1999).

  47. 47.

    H.R. Rep. No. 106-464 (1999).

  48. 48.

    Ibid.

  49. 49.

    See Network Solutions, Inc., NSI Domain Name Dispute Policy, pp. 1–2, available at: http://www.networksolutions.com/legal/dispute-policy.html.

  50. 50.

    63 Fed. Reg. at 31, 742.

  51. 51.

    In. Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy, 2005, https://www.registry.in/.IN%20Domain%20Name%20Dispute%20Resolution%20Policy%20(INDRP).

  52. 52.

    Id., Section 6(i).

  53. 53.

    Id., Section 6(ii).

  54. 54.

    Id., Section 6(iii).

  55. 55.

    Id., Section 10.

  56. 56.

    Yahoo!, Inc. v. Akash Arora & Anr 78 (1999) DLT 285, relied upon the ratio of Marks &

    Spencer v. One-in-a-Million (1998) FSR 265.

  57. 57.

    Rediff Communication Limited v. Cyberbooth AIR 2000 Bom. 27.

  58. 58.

    Manish Vij and v. Indra Chugh AIR 2002 Del. 243 at para 25.

  59. 59.

    Acqua Minerals Ltd.v. Pramod Borse AIR 2001 Del. 463.

  60. 60.

    AIR 2004 SC 3540.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Yashawant Rao Chavan Law College, Pune, India

    Ravindra Wakade

Authors
  1. Ravindra Wakade
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. National University of Study and Research in Law, Ranchi, Jharkhand, India

    B.C. Nirmal

  2. Faculty of Law, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh, India

    Rajnish Kumar Singh

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Wakade, R. (2018). Legislation for Domain Name Registration: A Requirement in Globalisation. In: Nirmal, B., Singh, R. (eds) Contemporary Issues in International Law. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-6277-3_33

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-6277-3_33

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore

  • Print ISBN: 978-981-10-6276-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-981-10-6277-3

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation