Domain Names: Legal Status and Dispute Resolution (INDRP)

This article is written by Neeraj Jain of Siksha O Anusandhan National Institute of Law pursuing B.A. LL. B. (H) is in 3^rd year during his internship at LeDroit India.

Scope of Article

• Introduction to domain names and their evolution in India.
• Legal status of domain names under Indian statutes.
• Overview of INDRP: Purpose, applicability, and framework.
• Dispute resolution process under INDRP.
• INDRP Framework: Detailed Policy Provisions, Rules, and Procedural Mechanics
• Landmark and recent case laws.
• Comparison with UDRP and court remedies.
• Challenges, future prospects, and recommendations.

Keywords

Domain names, INDRP, NIXI, trademark infringement, cybersquatting, arbitration, .IN domains.

Abstract

Domain names are significant digital names in the internet ecosystem that are comparable to trademarks in the physical world and legal laws in India on domain names are mainly covered by Trademarks Act, 1999 and specific domain name policies such as the .IN Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (INDRP).

Administered by the National Internet Exchange of India (NIXI), INDRP offers a powerful method to settle the disagreements associated with the names under the.IN and the. Bharat category, and the areas such as identical similarity to trademarks, no legitimate interest and bad faith registration are considered.

Based on the landmark cases like Yahoo!. Inc. v. Recent INDRP arbitration of such brands as Kent and Cloudera, Akash Arora and Satyam Infoway Ltd. v Sifynet Solutions Pvt. Ltd., and other recent cases, this article looks at the procedural regime, the evidentiary standards and remedies in the INDRP. It shows how INDRP is in line with Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and how it offers an alternative that is very cost effective to litigation. The keywords that will be used include domain names, INDRP, NIXI, trademark infringement, cybersquatting, arbitration.

Introduction to Domain Names

Domain names are special alpha-numeric numbers that convert the human-memorable addresses into Internet Protocol addresses, which comprise the Internet presence foundation. The.IN country code top-level domain (ccTLD), which since 2005 is operated by NIXI, has been expanding exponentially, is an indicator of the growth of digital India. The name spaces of the .IN domains are not generic top-level domains, as in the case of the UDRP of the ICANN, but rather the INDRP, a policy that is more specific to international standards and based on Indian jurisdiction.

Due to the boom in e-commerce and online branding, domain name has become a precious commodity, often resulting in a clash over the concept of cybersquatting, or registering domains under the name of the trademark to make money. Even in the absence of legislation domain names are considered by the Indian courts to be protectable through principles of passing off and trademarks.

Legal Status of Domain Names in India

Domain names do not get any statutory protection but get the protection provided to trademarks under the trademarks Act, 1999. Section 2(1)(zb) describes a trademark as a sign that marks the goods/services, which include the domain names but only when they are graphically representable and unique. Section 29 forbids the use of same/reasonably similarly so marks that are confusing, to the realms through passing off activities.

Domains have the chattel like proprietary status, subject to sale and even license, but subject to the contracts with NIXI. In law, Satyam upheld the goodwill protection under TMA section 135 passing-off triad: reputation, misrepresentation, damage. The TMA section 29 infringement is used in circumstances in which domain is used as trademark in commerce.

Examples: (1) icicibank.net by the squatters- infringement of registered ICICI mark; (2) Common law: Tata Sons v. Greenpeace (tatagreen.org parody) fail of fair use defense. Fraud/phishing IT Act §66D/43A supports content mimicry Copyright Act §51. Reverse domain hijacking, which is sanctioned through costs. 2024 TMA includes domains as well-known, notorious and inflicts cross-class injunctions. Comparative Enforcement Anton Piller orders seize servers; WIPO amicus in cross-border. Status cements cosign on loans using IP collateral that is auctioned through Sedo-GoDaddy.

It is supported by the Information Technology Act, 2000 via intermediary liabilities (Section 79) but primarily by means of the trademark law. IN registration is not contingent on Indian residence, but the registrant is entitled to non-infringement. Courts consider well known domain names to be a business name and thus injunction against dilution is granted. The complainants have overwhelming protection as over 97 percent of the INDRP ruling favors complainants.

Overview of INDRP

Since 2005NIXI adopt the INDRP as its dispute resolution system, governing disputes in the three domain names and subdomains (.IN, .bharat (in Indian languages), and sub-domains such as .co.in) that bind registrants under contract by regulation.

Important requirements to complaints: (1) domain similar/identically with name of complainant /trademark; (2) registration/use by registrant without legitimate rights; (3) bad faith. NIXI has a panel of arbitrators in Effect: having IP/domain knowledge; decisions are under obligation with registry carrying out transfers after 90-day challenge period. It is quicker/ cheaper than courts, although complainant-borne fees (~ 25,000-50,000).

Proprietary Rights, Trademark Nexus, and Judicial Recognition

Domains have the chattel-type of proprietary representations, that is, they are alienable, licensable, but burdened with the NIXI contracts. In the courts, Satyam affirmed that there was goodwill protection under TMA §135 passing-off triad: reputation, misrepresentation, damage. Infringement under TMA 29 is based on the case where commerce constitutes use as a trademark.

Examples: (1) icicibank.net by squatters- infringes registered ICICI mark; (2) common law: Tata Sons v. Greenpeace (Tatagreen.org parody) fair use defense was unsuccessful. The IT Act 66D/43A benefits fraud/phishing, Copyright act 51 benefits content mimicry. Reverse domain hijacking made illegal through costs. TMA rules 2024 see domain as well-known where it is notorious and provide cross-class injunctions. Enforcement Anton Piller orders seize servers; WIPO amicus in cross-border. Status cements as IP collateral IP auctions through Sedo-GoDaddy.

Dispute Resolution Process under INDRP

This is initiated by a complaint submitted online through the portal of NIXI with evidence of rightfulness, lack of legitimate interest, bad faith among others. After the check with conflict, NIXI informs the registrant (through email/WHOIS), appoints a single arbitrator (or 3-panel when there is any complex cases), randomly.

Arbitrator considers: legitimate interests (e.g., bona fide use pre-notice, common name association, fair use); bad faith (e.g., intent to sell, confusion generation, business interference). Defense happens to respondents between 7-15 days; it is a document-based hearing that ends within 30-60 days. Premise: transfer, cancellation or status quo, registered on registry.in. Registered post-15/90 days unless court-quashed (Delhi jurisdiction).

INDRP Framework: Detailed Policy Provisions, Rules, and Procedural Mechanics

INDRP (SF) INDRP (sf 1-20) requires .in/.nic/.bharat/.भारat quarrels, which follow NIXI, (i) Domain similar or identically similar to prior TM/common law rights (ii) No legitimate interest (no TM, bona fide use, and fair descriptive) (iii) bad faith (resale intent, blocking owner, confusion of competitor). Cures: Visa transfer or cancellation. Rules Procedure E-filing complaint (maximum 5000 words, Annexures, 30000 fee plus GST); NIXI notice/lock domain within 3 days; Response 10 days or default; Single arbitrator (50-panelists) appointed Day 5; Hearing 45 days later (documents/video); Award made by Day 60(extendable 30); Enforcement: Registrar transfers within 10 days. Lockouts prevent transfers. Appeals: HC Delhi, execution on Arbitration Act 37/34. Costs: Loser pays if abusive. Sunrise:TM holders pre-register premiums. Covers IDNs, privacy proxies.

Grounds for Complaints: Identicality, Legitimate Interest, and Bad Faith Analysis with Illustrations

 Identical/Similar: visual/phonetic (satym.in vs satyam.com); typo squatting (googl.in); homographic IDNs. Prior rights: Unregistered goodwill with TMA, but unregistered (Yahoo!). §4(ii) No Interest: non-use 3 Years presumptive, fan sites permitted when non-commercial. §4(iii) Bad faith WHOIS anonymity, resale request (e.g. 50L demand) Google analytics to porn sites, competitor blocks (flipkart.org.in by rival). Examples: (1) The Whirlpoolinida.in-typo + non-use = bad faith, (2) Bankofindia.net phishing-illegal and (3) Pre-election politician.in-dilution. Reverse: Plaintiff has to demonstrate all elements and defense cannot be shown without evidence. UDRP precedents are referred to by arbitrators.

Landmark Case Laws

Yahoo! Inc. v. Delhi High Court (1999) Akash Arora: The first use of domain protection, award of injunction on yahooindia.com on the basis of passing off, in dilution of the Yahoo! global mark, but there was no Indian registration.

Satyam Infoway Ltd. v. Sifynet Solutions Pvt. Ltd. (2004), Supreme Court: Determined domain names similar to a trademark under 1999 Act; affirmed <sify.com> infringement on <satyam.com> with a focus upon the prevention of confusion. These cases established judicial precedent, influencing INDRP’s three-prong test.

Courts enforce INDRP: Myspace v. Super Cassettes (Bombay HC 2011)—award execution via CPC.

Recent INDRP Arbitrations

INDRP Case No. 1448 (Kent): The Arbitrator awarded complainant the transfer of kent.in-like domain as a result of registration of trademark and bad faith (there is no legitimate use).

Case No. 1282 (Cloudera): The respondent did not have any rights to use cloudera.in variant and used it to bring confusion; hence, transfer to Cloudera Software India.

Case No. 1663 (Bitmain): Identity theft case was successful; the domain bitmaininvest.in was assigned with non-response of the respondent.

Recent statistics: By 2023, more than 1,177 resolutions had been made, and complainants achieved success in high rates; high-rank case instapro.net.in upheld transfer after service. 

INDRP vs. UDRP and Court Remedies

The INDRP is an analog of UDRP that requires the arbitral principle of the Arbitration Act, the location in Delhi, and the enforcement of the NIXI, unlike voluntary arbitration panels with ICANN. UDRP better fits gTLDs; INDRP is only befitting.IN. Damages/injunctions (e.g., Section 29 TMA) are found in courts, which are more slow/expensive; INDRP has no more than transfer/cancellation.

Challenges and Future Prospects

The difficulties are anonymous registrations that are difficult to notice, failure to cover reverse cybersquatting and lack of damages. IDN.bharat expansions require multi-lingual arbitrator panel. Although the efficiency of INDRP is high, the challenges of the system critique its effectiveness in the expanding digital ecosystem in India. Geographical Scope Limitation INDRP only manages the .in, .nic, .bharat, and .भारat names, not the .co.in, .org.in, and .net.in which 70% of 3.5 million India registrations are per NIXI 2025 data.

Such broken coverage also forces complainants to use more expensive TMA suits or UDRP of generic TLDs, instilling a forum-shopping phenomenon. WHOIS Privacy Evasion: Privacy proxies (e.g., PrivacyGuard services) are used by more than 25 percent of disputed domain names, as a nuisance in providing notice and identifying the respondent. NIXI Rules require disclosure after notification, but international hosts such as GoDaddy def Forestall the process, and extend the process to over 90 days in 15 percent instances.

FICCI 2025 report shows awareness among all SMEs to be poor (only 5-8% of qualified small businesses lodge complaints due to lack of IP literacy) and even in rural areas where digital divide is high 60% MSMEs have no domains but have squatters (Low Awareness Among SMEs).

Capacity restrictions of Arbitrators: NIXI has a pool of 60 panelists that can resolve 200 complaints a year, but a 20% delay during the peak of the e-commerce in 2025, which can be solved by having 3-member panels (as offered by UDRP), has been demonstrated with one panelist; NIXI has 60. Execution Bottlenecks: Registrars are required to execute/revoke in 10 days, foreign entities (Namecheap, 10% objections) accept awards, and the execution petition in 6-12 months backlog under Arbitration Act 36 unless enforced, sought execution by registrar.Future: Incorporate AI in analyzing evidence; comply with Digital Personal Data Protection Act in privacy.