WIPO-WTO COLLOQUIUM PAPERS

THE INTERFACE BETWEEN TRADEMARKS AND DOMAIN
NAMES - LEGAL CHALLENGES IN INDIA
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Under the UDRP policy, a complaint can be filed on the grounds that the domain name is
identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights. 7
Similarity is decided on the possibility of deception among potential customers. In an action for
passing off, similarity is also based on deception caused to consumers due to the identity or similarity
of the marks. The defences 8 available to a complainant are also substantially similar to those
available in an action of passing off under Indian Trademark Law.
The jurisdiction of Indian courts in domain name disputes
Cyberspace is a borderless environment. Global e-commerce is possible through the Internet.
In order to host a website, an e-business has to register a domain name. One can access the website
from anywhere in the world with the help of a domain name. Sometimes, a registered domain name
may be deceptively similar to a trademark or another domain name. This may lead to disputes among
the owners of domain names inter se, or between domain names and trademarks owners residing in
different jurisdictions. The defendant in such cases may not be residing within the territorial
jurisdiction of Indian courts. Thus, this raises an issue of personal jurisdiction over non-resident
defendants in domain name disputes.
Rules governing the jurisdiction of courts in civil suits are primarily national in character, i.e.
they are part of, and stem from a country‟s domestic legal system. In determining whether they have
jurisdiction over a particular matter, courts apply the procedural laws of the country to which they
belong i.e. (lex forum). As every country has its own laws, the lack of uniformity often results in
conflicts.
Sections 19 to 20 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) lay out the rules relating to
personal jurisdiction in India. Section 19 deals with lawsuits relating to compensation for wrongs
against persons or movables. Such actions may be initiated where the wrongs occurred, where the
defendant resides or carries on business, or where the defendant works for personal gain. It does not
cover foreign torts. Section 20 deals with other lawsuits, which may be initiated on the same
conditions as well as on where the cause of action arose (in whole or in part). 9
In the case of non-resident defendants, courts can exercise jurisdiction if the „cause of
action‟ 10 wholly or partly arises within the court‟s territorial jurisdiction. When a non-resident
7
Rule 4(a)(i), UDRP Policy.
8
Ibid., Rule 4(c).
9
Section 20, Civil Procedure Code - Other suits to be instituted where defendants reside or cause of
action arises - Subject to the limitations aforesaid, every suit shall be instituted in Court within the local limits of
whose jurisdiction -
(a) the defendant, or each of the defendants where there are more than one, at the time of the
commencement of the suit, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally
works for gain; or
(b) any of the defendants, where there are more than one, at the time of the commencement of the suit
actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain, provided that
in such case either the leave of the Court is given, or the defendants who do not reside, or carry on
business, or personally work for gain, as aforesaid, acquiesce in such institution; or
(c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises.
10
'In the restricted sense cause of action means the circumstance forming the infraction of the right or
the immediate occasion for the action. In the wider sense it means the necessary conditions for the maintenance
of the suit, including not only the infraction of the right, but the infraction coupled with the right itself.
Compendiously the expression means every fact which it would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove if
39