Author: Yamini Arora, School of Law, RNB Global University, Rajasthan
Introduction
In today’s digital world, a brand’s name and website are very important for its success. Many businesses rely on their online identity to reach customers. But this has also created new problems like trademark trolling and cybersquatting. These are ways people take unfair advantage of others’ trademarks using legal gaps in the system.
Trademark trolls are people or companies who register trademarks — not to use them — but to stop others from using them or to ask for money later. Cybersquatters do something similar by registering website domain names that are the same or very close to well-known brands. They often try to sell the domain back to the original brand at a high price or use it to trick users.
These practices cause trouble for real businesses and can hurt their reputation and sales. This article looks at how these issues work, what laws are there in India and other countries to stop them, and what more can be done to fix the loopholes in today’s IP protection systems.
Use of legal jargon
In India, the principal legislation governing trademarks is the Trademarks Act, 1999, which defines a trademark under Section 2(1)(zb) and provides for registration, protection, and enforcement mechanisms. While the Act primarily deals with the traditional scope of trademarks—such as
names, logos, and symbols—it has been interpreted liberally by Indian courts to extend to domain names under the doctrine of passing off. Information Technology Act, 2000-Though primarily focused on cybercrime, it complements IP laws in tackling fraudulent online activities like impersonation and phishing, which often accompany cybersquatting.
Abstract
While India has some protection through its Trade Marks Act, judicial precedents. there is still no dedicated anti-cybersquatting law, unlike the U.S., which has the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA). International frameworks like UDRP are more robust and often used by Indian entities for global domains like .com, but reforms in national policy are essential for comprehensive protection.
In my view IP law must evolve in tandem with the internet, not lag behind it. Laws that were written in the 20th century must be reformed to handle 21st-century threats like cybersquatting and
trademark trolling. With legal innovation, international cooperation, and robust digital enforcement, the current loopholes can be plugged—and the digital rights of creators and businesses can be truly protected.
Case Laws
A landmark Indian case on cybersquatting is Yahoo Inc. v. Akash Arora & Anr. (1999), where the Delhi High Court held that the defendant’s domain name ‘YahooIndia.com’ was deceptively similar to ‘Yahoo.com’, and likely to mislead internet users.
Internationally, the case of Panavision Int’l L.P. v. Dennis Toeppen (U.S. 1998) set a precedent when the court ruled that registering domain names to pressure companies into buying them was a form of bad-faith commercial behavior.
Maxims / Principles
1. Ubi jus ibi remedium
Meaning: Where there is a right, there is a remedy.
Application: Victims of cybersquatting or trademark trolling must have access to effective legal remedies, whether through national laws or international mechanisms like UDRP or INDRP.
2. Fraus et jus nunquam cohabitant
Meaning: Fraud and justice never dwell together.
Application: Cybersquatting and trademark trolling are inherently deceitful and done in bad faith. Legal systems must not allow fraudsters to benefit from legal protections.
3. Ex turpi causa non oritur actio
Meaning: No action arises from an immoral cause.
Application: A person who registers a domain or trademark in bad faith should not be allowed to assert legal rights over it.
Conclusion
By analyzing the contents of this article, we can conclude that while Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) frameworks exist both in India and globally, there remain critical loopholes in protecting trademarks and domain names in the digital space. Trademark trolling and cybersquatting have emerged as modern-day challenges that exploit the delay and ambiguity in enforcement mechanisms. The rise in cybersquatting disputes, as highlighted through statistical data, underscores the urgent need for stronger, faster, and more technology-integrated legal responses. India, despite being a signatory to major international treaties like TRIPS and the Paris Convention, still lacks a robust and specialized administrative framework for domain name dispute resolution. Therefore, a combination of legal reform, enhanced awareness, global cooperation, and digital enforcement tools is essential to ensure fair protection of IP in the digital age, so that creators and businesses are not discouraged or exploited.
FAQS
Q1: What is a trademark troll?
A trademark troll is an individual or entity that registers trademarks not to use them in legitimate business but to exploit the legal system by threatening lawsuits or demanding licensing fees from actual users of similar marks. They often target startups or small businesses that may not have the resources to fight legal battles.
Q2: What is cybersquatting?
Cybersquatting refers to the practice of registering domain names that are identical or confusingly similar to well-known trademarks with the intent of selling them to the rightful trademark owners at an inflated price. This tactic is often used for financial gain or to mislead consumers.
Q3: How are domain name disputes resolved internationally?
Most international domain disputes are resolved under the Uniform Domain-Name
Dispute-Resolution Policy (UDRP), administered by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). This process allows trademark owners to seek quick relief by having the domain name cancelled or transferred if bad faith is proven.
