Cyber squatting (also referred to as domain squatting), good United states of america federal law known as the Anti Cyber Squatting Consumer Protection Act,1999, Cyber Squatting is registering, trafficking in, or using a website name with bad faith intent to profit from your goodwill of your trademark belonging to somebody else. The generally accepted meaning of Cyber squatting is “Registration of a Website name that’s much like someone Else’s Trademark or personal name, where:
Registrant doesn’t have legitimate right to the url of your website.
Some evidence that Registrant registered name solely to take good thing about the trademark holder or individual owner of the name.”
Cyber Squatting occur every time a 3rd party registering else trademark as a url of your website while using intention to offer it returning to the owner in a substantial fee. What the law states of trademark interferes here to protect the true owner who may have the exclusive to the trademark.
The term Cyber Squatting is derived from “squatting,” which can be the action of occupying an abandoned or unoccupied space or building that this squatter won’t own, rent or otherwise have permission to make use of. Cyber squatting however somewhat is unique for the reason that the domains that are being “squatted” are (sometimes however , not always) is being paid for from the registration process through the Cyber squatters. Cyber squatters usually ask for prices much better than that from which they bought it
The term “cyber squatting” describes registering, using, or selling web site with bad faith intent to learn from someone else’s trademark. Additionally it is the deliberate bad faith registration as domain of well-known trademarks in the hope of being capable to sells the domain towards the people who just love those marks (or rivals owners) or simply to look at unfair benefit of the reputation attached with those marks. In technical parlance, this is known as cyber squatting. Thus requires the using domain name with a person with neither trademark registration nor any inherent rights for the name.
So, what is the magnitude with the current problem cyber squatting? It would be an inefficient try and encompass the ever-increasing magnitude of cyber-squatting, but a bare mention of the a couple of cases, highlights possible abuse and commercial nuisance generated by cyber squatting: -
In Rediff Communications LTD, v Cyber booth, plaintiff, online resources the well-known portal and url of your website rediff.com filled for injunction from the defendant, registrant from the domain name “rediff .com”. There was a common field of activity and also the judge was satisfied that there is a ‘clear intention to deceive’ and granted interim relief for the plaintiff. The judge stated, “A website is much more than a web address which is entitled to the equal protection of trademark.”
To learn cyber squatting it is also crucial that you know very well what can be a website name because it’s directly related to it as is also the domain names only that happen to be being hijacked with the cyber squatters. Websites identify one computer from your millions of others attached to the internet enabling users for you email, access webpages, to transfer files. The website names system has two components:
Top level website name and ,
Second level website name.
Governments authorize and license companies as registrars to offer website names to the people.
Many domains are the name of companies, which in turn are often registered trademarks. The usage of trademark within domain names allows for the easiest way of identification of a company’s business on an internet user. Some web browser allows user to find a company homepage by simply typing in the name with the company or its trademark and the browser add rest of the URL.A short easy identifiable domain name which includes a company trademark, means that its promotion, information and commercial offerings are really simple to find. Thus domains goes to serve similar functions to trade marks.
The practice that’s become known as cyber squatting originated at a time when most businesses are not savvy about the commercial opportunities on the net. Some entrepreneurial souls registered what they are called of well-known companies as domains, with the intent of selling what they are called back to the firms once they finally woke up. Panasonic, Fry’s Electronics, Hertz and Avon were among the “victims” of cyber squatters. Opportunities for cyber squatters are rapidly diminishing, since the majority of businesses now realize that nailing down websites can be a high priority.
Before 1999, the business enterprise was still being resisting the need for the world wide web as being a tool for fulfillment. They didn’t begin to see the must register their trademarks as websites. However, cyber squatters did see the increasing importance of the web, and saw the firms making larger than fifteen of ignoring it. This the place cyber squatting came to be and began causing problems.
Steps arrive at prevent cyber squatting:
In India in the absence of requisite cyber laws in order to avoid cyber squatting, the events involving cyber squatting is decided beneath the relevant provision of trademark laws i.e., sections 27 and 29 which can be linked to passing off and infringement respectively.
In UK, if someone has registered web site incorporating a trademark, then your website holder could possibly be in breach of section 10 in the Trademark Act, 1994 that states “a person infringes a registered trademark if he makes use of identical or exactly like the registered trademark regarding identical or similar goods or services”.
Recognizing the problems raised by clash between website system and trademarks, the planet Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Arbitration and Mediation Centre is developing a web-based Internet based system for administering commercial disputes involving intellectual property. The Dispute Resolution Mechanism is unique because it really is meant to be used online both for document exchange as well as for filling of evidence. However, the main documentary evidence it’s still must be filled in an actual form. The dispute resolution is just signed and therefore, providing a relatively inexpensive and efficient service and at all aim to take the place of national jurisdiction.
In October 1999, the net Corporation for Assigned Names and Number (ICANN) (the present administrator in the .com, .org and .net website systems) adopted the uniform name domain dispute resolution policy to clarify its position also to cut the charge and amount of lawsuits over url of your website disputes.
Legal Actions against Cyber squatters and Websites – Website name Law & Website name Disputes:
There’s two primary domain name rules providing legal channels for recovering web site:
the Anti Cyber Squatting Consumer Protection Act,1999 (“ACPA”) and
ICANN’s Uniform Website name Dispute Resolution Policy (“UDRP”).
ACPA Act, 1999:
The Anti Cyber Squatting Consumer Protection Act (also referred to as Truth in Website names Act), United States federal law enacted in 1999, is part of A bill to amend the provisions of title 17, United States Code, and also the Communications Act of 1934, associated with copyright licensing and carriage of broadcast signals by satellite (S. 1948). Commemorate people who register website names which have been either trademarks or individual’s names with all the sole intent of selling the rights with the domain name to the trademark holder or individual for a profit prone to civil action. It was sponsored by Senator Trent Lott on November 17, 1999, and enacted on November 29 of the year. The ACPA is codified at 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d).
ACPA refers to individuals who: 
use a bad faith intent to learn from your domain name
register, use or traffic inside a website; which is identical, confusingly similar, or dilutive of certain trademarks The trademark doesn’t have to be registered.
ACPA provides that cyber pirates can be fined between $1,000 and $100,000 per website name for which they may be found liable, along with having to transfer the website name.
Somewhat more broadly, the Act is meant to reduce consumer’s confusion regarding the source and sponsorship of Internet webpages. The theory should be to provide customers using a way of measuring reliability, so that if they visit www.burgerking.com, they will be able to find actual Burger King Products, and not something entirely different. In addition , it protects mark owners from decrease of customer goodwill which may occur if others used the trademark to promote disreputable goods or services.
Penalties underneath the act:
The trademark owner can recover
The domain holder’s profits from technique mark,
The trademark owner’s damages resulting from injury to the value of mark, and
Court costs as “actual damages.” In determining the award to be paid, legal court can choose to award around 3 x how much actual damages. Attorney fees might be awarded in exceptional circumstances, including when there was a willful and malicious violation.
As opposed to the need to prove the number of “actual” damages suffered as above, the mark owner can instead request payment of “statutory damages” from $1000 and $100,000 per website name.
Among the limitations from the Act is the effect on settling disputes: where two parties have a very dispute over a website, as well as the website name owner includes a lesser curiosity about the domain and it is prepared to settle the dispute, when the url of your website owner proposes to exchange the website name for compensation (such as the cost of reprinting letterhead, business card printing, and other expenses), that include can constitute “acting in bad faith to learn from your mark”. This makes url of your website disputes harder to resolve.
Uniform Url of your website Dispute Resolution Policy (as approved by ICANN on Oct 24, 1999):
Besides bringing case in federal court, a trademark owner who believes that someone else is violating her or his trademark rights through cyber squatting may use the Uniform Website name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP). The UDRP is definitely an online dispute resolution mechanism administered from the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) and sets the conditions and terms in connection with a dispute between you together with every other party over the registration and employ of your internet domain registered. Within the UDRP, ICANN can cancel an improperly registered website name or order a losing party to transfer the website towards the winning party. Under Para 4 of the policy is going to be conducted in line with the rules for UDRP. The purpose of UDRP is always to give a cheaper plus much more efficient mechanism for resolving cyber squatting disputes. In case you believe that someone is cyber squatting on the url of your website that rightfully needs to be yours, bringing an action under the UDRP may be a cheap and easy substitute for a case. Note, however, that a losing party inside a UDRP proceeding may sue in federal court to reverse the outcome. Importantly, if the court determines that the person initiating a UDRP proceeding knowingly misrepresented the challenged website name was “identical to, confusingly just like or dilutive of [his or her] mark,” then it may award the opposite party damages and attorney’s fees.
Representation under UDRP:
Statements stated in the registration agreement should be complete and accurate,
To your knowledge registration of the domain name will not be infringe upon you aren’t violate the rights of the vacation,
Website name shouldn’t be registered for illegal purpose,
Domains never to supply knowingly in violation of the applicable laws or regulations.
It is our responsibility to recognize whether website registration infringes or violates somebody else’s right.
In October 1999, the net Corporation for Assigned Names and Number (ICANN) (the present administrator of the .com, .org and .net domain name systems) adopted the Uniform Name Domain Dispute Resolution Policy to clarify its position also to cut the fee and number of lawsuits over website name disputes. Inside the lines of the final WIPO report of internet website possess, the policy that all website name registrations now adhere, is a, which tries to result in the settlement of in website disputes. Underneath the policy in the event involving cyber squatting the complainant can (but do not need to) invoke mandatory administrative procedure (herein after known as the procedure) before among the administrative dispute resolution service providers approved by ICANN. The complainant selects the provider and all sorts of costs involved (likely to have areas folks $1000) must be borne by him., An excellent complainant’s remedy is restricted to requiring the cancellation in the registrant’s domain name or transfer of website registration on the complainant.
Yahoo Inc. v. Akash Arora:
The 1st reported Indian Case wherein the Plaintiff, that’s the registered who owns the domain name yahoo.com succeeded in obtaining an interim order restraining the Defendants and Agents from casually service or goods on the web or else under the domain name yahooindia.com or any other trademarks/ domain name which is deceptively just like the plaintiff’s trademark Yahoo. The learned single Judge in the Delhi High Court rejected the argument the provisions in the Indian Trade Mark Act couldn’t survive attracted to using the domain trade name or url of your website online. The learned Judge held that although word `services’ might not find invest the expression utilized in Sections 27 and 29 with the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, services rendered need to be recognized to have an action of passing off. The learned Judge held how the two marks/domain names “Yahoo!” of the plaintiffs and “Yahooindia” of the defendants are almost similar excepting for your using suffix `India’ in the latter. The learned Judge also rejected the argument in the defendants the Online surfers are sophisticated users in support of literate those people who are able to ascertain can approach the specific Internet site they plan to visit. The learned Judge observed if someone is a sophisticated user of the Internet he may be an unsophisticated consumer of data and such a person could find his/her approach to the several Internet site which gives almost similar sort of information as that regarding the plaintiff and thereby confusion could be created inside mind of the said individual that offers to go to Website from the plaintiff, in fact reaches the Internet site of the defendant.
M/s. Mahindra & Mahindra v. Neoplanet Solutions:
The Complainant is a popular manufacturer and exporter of tractors and utility vehicles. Independent of the Complainant itself, 35 Group Companies include “Mahindra” within their names. By reason in the extensive usage of Trademarks as well as the name Mahindra in the various Group Companies, the saying Mahindra, no less than with regards to Cars, is associated exclusively with the Complainant.
The Complainant became alert to the existence of the domain name registration in issue at a date prior to December 13, 1999. Prior to the attorney’s letter of December 13, 1999, that they asked their associates in Vijayawada to approach Network Solutions informally to investigate about its registration in the website. The associates were informed the Network Solutions was prepared to transfer the domain name to the sum of Rs. 15, 000/- but Network Solutions “did not reproduce the demand on paper.”
It had been found by the panel that the Respondent’s website name “Mahindra.com” was the same as the trademark “Mahindra”, the Respondent had no rights or legitimate reason for adopting the phrase “Mahindra” being a website and the url of your website “Mahindra.com” was registered and being used in bad faith.
Considering that the components of paragraph 4 (a) of UDRP were proved, the panelists ordered that the domain name “Mahindra.com” be utilized in Mahindra & Mahindra.
Now it’s clear that what cyber is squatting exactly about, it is just a kind of cyber crime which should be stopped at the earliest opportunity in order that it cannot harm the trustworthiness of a company or perhaps a person. According to me the ACPA for that infringement of cyber squatting is just not enough to control this menace, there are certain limitations also to this ac which have to be cured and also the procedure is long which must be shortened.
The UDRP will be the other legal reform to prevent cyber squatting. In a way the UDRP is preferable to the ACPA work as here the procedure is short plus it make an effort to solve it online only.
But more has to be completed to steer clear of the cyber squatting because these two laws aren’t enough to combat by it. Along with the position of India for cyber squatting just isn’t very impressive. Firstly:
India does not have any separate act law associated with cyber squatting.
The truth of cyber squatting comes within the trademarks act.
The cases of cyber squatting are increasing day-to-day.
Folks are not much conscious of it
No major steps are actually come to prevent
Therefore regarding other countries on the planet India position is just not so great. The opposite countries are coping with cyber squatting in some manner or perhaps the other, but in India there isn’t a separate law to prevent it. Hence, I suggest that foremost a law has to be passed in India from the cyber squatting and cyber squatters, which can profit the trademark laws also.
 2000 (20) PTC 209.
 Article by Michael Handler(B.A.LL.B final year student)University of Sydney.
 Guide to Trade Marks Law,2nd edition, by Manish Arora,Universal Law Publishing.
 Supra 14.
 Intellectual Property by Deborah E. Bouchoux,2000 Edition, West Legal Studies Thomson Learning Publications.
 1999 PTC (19) 201.