© IE Online Media Services Pvt Ltd
Tags:
Journalism of Courage
Earlier this week, a Delhi-based developer made headlines after he revealed that he owns the domain name jiohotstar.com. The developer, who foresaw a potential merger of Reliance JioCinema and Disney+ Hotstar, purchased the domain some time ago.
At a time when Reliance JioCinema was completing the regulatory approvals for the merger with the streamer, the developer posted a letter addressed to the executives of Reliance Industries asking them to fund his higher education in return for the domain.
The letter led to a standoff between the developer and Reliance over the domain. However, now it seems to have concluded. After acquiring the domain ahead of a highly-anticipated merger, the developer has now announced that the site will go offline. Reportedly, the developer is now offering it for sale on a domain marketplace.
What is this act of “stealing” domains called?
The developer buying the domain and offering it up for sale is known as Cybersquatting. According to the popular definition of Cybersquatting, it is an act of registering or using a domain name to profit from a trademark, corporate or personal name of an individual.
Usually, cybersquatting is seen as a form of extortion or even as an attempt to take over business from its rival. However, there is also a possibility that the domain name was registered purely with good intentions and if that’s the case, it would not qualify as cybersquatting. This is not the case when a legitimate business name is registered without any ill intention even if the name is already in use.
Is it illegal?
The US passed the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA) in 1999. Under this law, affected parties can take legal action against people registering, trafficking, or using a domain name that is similar to, or dilutive of, a personal name or trademark. In the US, domain squatters can be sued in federal court by trademark owners under the ACPA law. However, there are some conditions for cybersquatting cases to be pursued under ACPA –– the mark has to be recognisable, the squatter is engaged in illegal activity, etc.
When it comes to India, there is no specific law that prohibits domain squatting. However, under the Trade Marks Act of 1999, the Indian courts have ruled in favour of trademark owners on numerous occasions. Some of the notable cases include Yahoo! Inc. Vs Akash Arora & Anr. where the Delhi High Court ruled that Arora’s use of the domain ‘YahooIndia’ was likely to confuse users thereby infringing Yahoo’s trademark.
What are some similar cases?
Following the JioHotstar domain tussle, another user Amit Bhawani took to his X account to share that he was sent a legal notice by Reliance for acquiring the domain reliancejio.com and riljio.com in 2012. This was three years before the Jio was officially announced.
Similarly, in 2007, Bharti Airtel won a dispute over the domain – bharatiairtel.com. The telecom major had contested the ownership of the domain with a Saint Kitts-based company Marketing Total which had registered the domain name. World Intellectual Property Rights (WIPO), an international intellectual property rights watchdog, had ruled in favour of Bharti Airtel.
“The domain name registered by the respondent is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark or service mark in which the complainant (Bharti Airtel) has rights. The respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name and it has been registered and is being used in bad faith,” said a WIPO panellist.
In the letter, signed off as Dreamer, the app developer said that his intention of buying this domain was simple – “if this merger happens, I might be able to fulfil my dream of studying at Cambridge.” In his letter, the developer said that he came across a news article about how Disney+ Hotstar was considering selling or merging itself with an Indian competitor. He said that this led him to assume that since Sony and Zee were pursuing their own merger, Viacom 18 by Reliance was the only major player capable of acquiring Disney+ Hotstar.
He said that when Jio acquired Saavn, a music streaming service, the company rebranded it as JioSaavn and changed the domain from saavn.com to jiosaavn.com. “If they acquire Hotstar, they might rename it to JioHotstar.com. I checked for the domain, and it was available. I was excited, as I felt that if this happened, I could fund my goal of studying at Cambridge,” wrote the developer.
Even as the internet continues to be divided on the matter, it can be said that at present the legal framework against cybersquatting in India is vague. If Reliance takes a legal route, the developer would likely face action under the Trade Marks Act 199 since Hotstar and Jio are different trademarks.
