Wake up India!

We all know that the system of allocation of domain names is based on a ‘first-come,

first-served’ basis. Because of this inherent factor, cyber squatting seems to

have become the order of the day. Consequently, the world has seen numerous

important names of world famous brands, trademarks, corporates, and even

countries being cybersquatted.

The global body managing the Internet, ICANN was confronted with this problem

of cyber squatting and that is why in 1999, it came up with the ‘Uniform

Domain Names Dispute Resolution Policy’. This policy enables you to get any

domain name back if you are able to demonstrate that the initial registration

was done in bad faith. The principles governing the Uniform Domain Names Dispute

Resolution Policy have been evolving with the result that now, the principles

governing bad faith registrations and the element of proof are clearly defined.

While the governments of some countries, whose legal domain names have been

cybersquatted upon, have been making efforts to regain those domain names,

nothing seems to be happening in this direction in India. The name India.com

opens up to a free personal email services website and belongs to a private

legal entity. The domain name India.info opens up a web page that says that this

domain is booked by a honey products company.

Similarly, a search through Whois records shows that the name delhi.com has

been booked by a legal entity called Anything.com Ltd. The Whois record further

shows that the request for India.biz is pending. South Africa recently decided

to work towards getting its domain name, southafrica.com back. That should be a

good enough reason for other countries to join in the fray. Domain names, being

the names of the relevant countries, should logically and legitimately belong to

the governments of those countries. The government of a particular country alone

has got the legitimate right over the name of that country.

Another example is that of the city of Barcelona. In this case, the city of

Barcelona filed an action for getting its domain name, Barcelona.com, back from

a cyber squatter. The action was filed under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute

Resolution Policy. By virtue of the order dated 4/8/2000, the Administrative

Panel of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) held that the city

Government of Barcelona has got legal and legitimate interests in the domain

name barcelona.com and that the present case was one of bad faith registration.

In the action before the World Intellectual Property Organization, the city

of Barcelona was successful in getting the ruling in its favor to the effect

that the Internet domain name Barcelona.com should be taken away from its

current owners and handed over to the Spanish city of the similar name. On

losing the case at WIPO, the respondent, as per the provisions of the Uniform

Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy, filed an appeal in an American Court in

the United States.

The American Court has now recently held that the name Barcelona.com should

be given back to the city with the same name. Thus, the decks have been cleared

for other similar countries and cities to start claiming their domain names

back. Given that the Internet is growing as it is, we will see these names

becoming the digital equivalent of the identity in coming times. India and her

state governments need to learn from precedents already created in getting

domain names back.

These are still early days for the Internet and it will make a lot of sense

to get these names back soon. As time passes, it will be increasingly difficult

for governments to get the domain names back. Let’s hope that someone,

somewhere is listening. And maybe I should reiterate–it is best to fight for

your rights while the going is good and the issue active enough, both from your

and the adjudicator’s point of view, to get to a conclusion fast. We do have

this habit of letting things hang fire for too long, and waking up only once the

goose has been cooked!

The author is a Supreme Court advocate