1

INTRODUCTION

Intellectual property rights are the rights given to persons over the creations of their minds. They usually
give the creator an exclusive right over the use of his creation for a certain period of time. Intellectual
property rights are customarily divided into two main areas: copyright and rights related to copyright,
and industrial property. Competition in the marketplace rewards those sellers of goods or services who
are offering the best possible product at the lowest possible price. Since markets are dynamic and buyers
make decisions every day about what to buy and from whom to buy, innovation is the key to future
success and ultimately survival. Even in areas where markets fail and governments take over, such as
environmental protection, constant innovation is crucial for our countries and societies to meet the
challenges of our ever faster evolving and globalizing world. The quest for cheap and clean energy, clean
water, nutritious, healthy and abundant food, affordable and efficient communication and transportation,
and safety from crime, terror and war, are just some examples of areas where governments are constantly
looking for innovative solutions for the benefit of their peoples and societies. The question how to
promote and harness innovation for the greatest possible benefit has, therefore, become more important
than ever. Different political and economic systems have provided different answers to this question
over time. Some answers have been more successful than others. The ever-increasing importance of
international political cooperation and international trade provides direct comparison and com- petition
between different national systems. If one country promotes innovation more success- fully, other
countries may fall behind. At the same time, the instruments rewarding innovators in one country may
not be recognized by other countries and their industries may be able to steal ideas for short term gain.
Thus, the cross-border trade of goods and services, the fastest growing sector and most powerful motor
of most economies today, challenges different countries to cooperate in the promotion of innovation.
Mutual recognition and enforcement of intellectual property rights is at the heart of the challenge and
there cannot be a world of free and fair trade without a system of mutually acceptable protection of
intellectual property regardless of origin and ownership.

The internet has brought a massive revolution in the 19th century which can be equated with the
industrial revolution. The internet was launched for the purpose of communication between the masses
but within the few years only, it became one of the most important tools for the communication for
business transactions, governmental policies and social interaction. It has provided the opportunities for
the millions of people and brought liabilities in the field of intellectual property, data privacy, etc. The
challenges that the law has faced in recent years is, how to foster the development of intellectual property
on the Internet while preventing its unauthorized use. We have addresses for our homes and offices. In
the same way, domain names are nothing but simple forms of addresses on the internet. These addresses
 2

enable the users to locate websites on the net in an easy manner. Domain name corresponds to various
IP (Internet Protocol) numbers which connect various computers and enable direct network routing
system to direct data requests to the correct addressee. Cybersquatting and Domain Name Disputes, both
are covered under Trademark Law. There are so many instances of abusive domain name registration
and infringement of trademarks on the internet that law of trademark has extended its purview to domain
names as well. Most of the domain name disputes and cybersquatting cases are dealt under the passing
off when there are no specific provisions on the issue.

Rapid developments and enhancements in information technology have brought a new platform for trade
and business. They have increased their significance and presence in the “online markets” with the help of
their trademarks to attract consumers. Hence, in this scenario, trademarks play an important role in
cyberspace and therefore, increasing the need for their protection. Disputes over rights to domain names,
which serve as a source – identifying function in cyberspace, similar to a trademark, arise at the heart of
this intersection between international trademark law and the Internet1. In an effort to reconcile the unique
complexities presented by domain name disputes, a host of vehicles have been developed by which
aggrieved parties may assert their rights such as the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy
(UDRP) promulgated by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), the non-
profit organization that manages the DNS.2
 3

CYBERSQUATTING

The History of Cybersquatting

The practice that's come to be known as cybersquatting originated at a time when most businesses were
not savvy about the commercial opportunities on the Internet. Some entrepreneurial souls registered the
names of well-known companies as domain names, with the intent of selling the names back to the
companies when they finally woke up. Panasonic, Fry's Electronics, Hertz and Avon were among the
"victims" of cybersquatters. Opportunities for cybersquatters are rapidly diminishing, because most
businesses now know that nailing down domain names is a high priority. Registration of domain names
are done on ‘first come – first serve’ basis. This gives rise to many problems as any person can register
any domain name of their choice regardless of whether that name holds any trademark or goodwill of a
commercial/business enterprise or represents any kind of organization. This lead to the reserving of many
well-known trade names, brand names, company names, etc. by individual/corporations other the ones
with a genuine interest in the domain name, with a view to trafficking/doing business on the said domain
name to the genuine buyer.

Cyber-squatters, also known as “cyber-pirates”, beat a company to the punch by reserving a company name
or trademark as a domain name in the hope of profiting when the company wants to reserve its own name.
Essentially, cyber squatters fraudulently obtain these domain names with the intent to sell it to the lawful
owner of the name at a higher price or premium. The cyber squatters quickly sell the domain names to
other non-related entities, thereby enabling passing off and diluting of famous trademark or trade names.
Passing off is a form of unfair trade practices in which one party seeks to profit from the other party’s
reputation. The main problem lies in the fact that two owners cannot have the same domain name. Hence,
although cyber squatters are not completely restricting corporations from registering any domain name of
their choice, it can be argued that cyber squatters are not preventing the right of corporations to domain
names. However, by registering the most obvious as a domain name (e.g., the name of the corporation
itself), cyber squatters force corporations to find other ways to attract consumers to their Internet pages.
Instead of simply typing an obvious domain name for a corporation, customers are forced to use a search
engine, which may cause additional confusion or delay when accessing the desired site. Moreover, with
the programming of search engines, often enough websites of the competitors with similar domain names
pop up. Consumers seeking the page of a specified trademark owner will likely turn to a search engine
because an initial attempt of typing in the domain name (For example, ‘www.trademark.com’) does not
 4

yield the desired result as a cyber squatter has already registered that domain. Therefore, the trademark
owner is injured in three ways: -

1. Using a search engine will inconvenience the consumer, because he may possibly have to wade through
thousands of other sites to get to the desired site. Thus, this increases the customers search costs and makes
it more likely that the customer will become frustrated with the trademark owner, regardless of the quality
of her products or services.

2. The search engine route likely will bring up many Internet sites of the trademark owner’s competitors.

3. The frustration that customers face with this problem may convince customers to use alternative, non-
Internet means to get the desired products. This fact, combined with the likely frustration from the search
engine process might make customers, originally searching to purchase the trademark owner’s products,
shift their purchases to the trademark owner’s competitors.

The term cybersquatting refers to the unauthorized registration and use of Internet domain names that are
identical or similar to trademarks, service marks, company names, or personal names. Cybersquatting
registrants obtain and use the domain name with the bad faith intent to profit from the goodwill of the
actual trademark owner. Both the federal government and the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names
and Numbers have taken action to protect the owners of trademarks and businesses against cybersquatting
abuses. Cybersquatting is the practice of registering an Internet domain name that is likely to be wanted by
another person, business, or organization in the hope that it can be sold to them for a profit. It involves the
registration of trademarks and trade names as domain names by third parties, who do not possess rights in
such names. Simply put, cybersquatters (or bad faith imitators) register trade-marks, trade names, business
names and so on, belonging to third parties with the common motive of trading on the reputation and
goodwill of such third parties by either confusing customers or potential customers, and at times, to even
sell the domain name to the rightful owner at a profit.
 5

DOMAIN NAME

Every resource on the Internet, such as a web page or a file of information has its own address known as
Uniform Resource Locator URL. A domain name is part of this address which is assigned to each computer
or service on the Internet. Domain name system maps names to a series of number or IP address. These
numbers are then linked with an easily read and remembered address - the domain name. The domain
name need not change if the computer or service changes, whereas the series of numbers will. The domain
name is intended to be more meaningful to human beings than the series of numbers. The numbers referred
to above are linked with the domain name "rs. internic.net". People who are using the domain name can
therefore choose an easily remembered, and importantly, easily recognizable names in cyberspace.

The Internet Corporation of Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) is responsible for the administration
of top-level domain names. In assigning a domain, NSI uses a multi-level system, including a top level
domain (TLD) such as .com and .net which are considered worldwide generic. First step to acquire a
domain name is to contact the administrator of the TLD and if the identical requested domain name is not
already assigned, the name will be then approved by the administrator. That allocation of IP addresses and
domain names worldwide is done centrally. There is a specific registration process involved. The IANA is

the central internet authority that allocates IP addresses and domain names through the INTERNIC1

Role of Domain Name

Internet Protocol (IP) addresses, which consist of a string of numbers separated by periods, are used to
identify Internet sites. A domain name provides a corresponding alphanumeric address which is easier to
remember and often intuitive. For example, www.ibm.com is IBM’s website.3Accordingly, domain names
represent the same purposes as trademarks, online, for business and commercial purposes.

• They serve to identify the source of goods and services, such as:
Promotion of business and building up of customer base online and offline by way of advertising
on the web.
• Establishment of the credibility of the website and the business of the Internet.
• Easy access to customers and prospective customers.
 6

LAWS IN INDIA

Unlike many developed countries, in India we have no Domain Name Protection Law and cybersquatting
cases are decided under Trade Mark Act, 1999. That although the Indian Courts have drawn the distinction
between trade mark and domain name; wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satyam Info way Ltd vs
Sifynet Solutions Pvt Ltd1 has observed that the "Distinction lies in the manner in which the two operate.
A trademark is protected by the laws of a country where such trademark may be registered. Consequently,
a trade mark may have multiple registrations in many countries throughout the world. On the other hand,
since the internet allows for access without any geographical limitation, a domain name is potentially
accessible irrespective of the geographical location of the consumers. The outcome of this potential for
universal connectivity is not only that a domain name would require worldwide exclusivity but also that
national laws might be inadequate to effectively protect a domain name". The Indian Courts though have
recognized the lacuna, however, in the absence of an explicit legislation, courts apply provisions of the
Trade Marks Act to such disputes. The Court in Case (Supra) further observed that "As far as India is
concerned, there is no legislation which explicitly refers to dispute resolution in connection with domain
names. But although the operation of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 itself is not extra territorial and may not
allow for adequate protection of domain names, this does not mean that domain names are not to be legally
protected to the extent possible under the laws relating to passing off".

Dispute Resolution

Dispute involving bad faith registrations are typically resolved using the Uniform Domain Name Dispute
Resolution Policy (UDRP) process developed by the ICANN. Under UDRP, WIPO is the leading ICANN
accredited domain name dispute resolution service provider and was established as a vehicle for promoting
the protection, dissemination, and the use of intellectual property throughout the world. India is one of the
171 states of the world which are members of WIPO.

A person may complain before the administration dispute resolution service providers listed by ICANN
under Rule 4 (a) that:

(i) A domain name is "identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark or service mark" in which the
complainant has rights; and

(ii) The domain name owner/registrant has no right or legitimate interest in respect of the domain name;
and

1
AIR 2004 SC 3540
 7

(iii) A domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

Rule 4 (b) has listed, by way of illustration, the following four circumstances as evidence of registration
and the use of a domain name in bad faith:

(i) Circumstances indicating that the domain name owner/registrant has registered or acquired the domain
name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting or otherwise transferring the domain name registration
to the complainant who is the owner of the trade mark or service mark; or to a competitor of that
complainant for valuable consideration in excess of its documented out of pocket costs, directly related to
the domain name; or

(ii) The domain name owner/registrant has registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of
the trade mark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that it
has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or

(iii) The domain name owner/registrant has registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of
disrupting the business of a competitor; or

(iv) By using the domain name, the domain name owner/registrant has intentionally attempted to attract,
for commercial gain internet users to its web site or other online location by creating a likely hood of
confusion with the complainants mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the
domain name owner/ registrant web site or location or of a product or service on its web site or location.

India has also established its own registry by the name IN Registry under the authority of National Internet
Exchange of India (NIXI), wherein the dispute related to the domain name are resolved under the .IN
Dispute Resolution Policy (INDRP). The Policy has been formulated in line with internationally accepted
guidelines, and with the relevant provisions of the Indian Information Technology Act 2000.

Under IN Registry, disputes are resolved under .IN Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (INDRP)
and INDRP Rules of Procedure. These rules describe how to file a complaint, fees, communications and
the procedure involved.
 8

Role of Judiciary

Though domain names are not defined under any Indian law or are covered under any special enactment,
the Courts in India has applied Trade Marks Act, 1999 to such cases.

Like in other cases under Trademarks Act, 1999 two kind of reliefs are available:

1. Remedy of infringement

2. Remedy of passing off

Remedy of Infringement: Trade mark Act permits owner of the trade mark to avail the remedy of
infringement only when the trade mark is registered. Remedy of Passing off: No registration of the trade
mark is required in case the owner intends to avail the relief under passing off.

The first case that came up before the Indian Courts was Yahoo! Inc. v. Akash Arora and others2 in which
an attempt was made to use the domain name <yahooindia.com> for Internet related services as against
domain name i.e. <yahoo.com>, The Court observed that usually the degree of the similarity of the marks
is vitally important and significant in an action for passing off for in such a case there is every possibility
and likelihood of confusion and deception being caused. When both the domain names are considered, it
is crystal clear that the two names being almost identical or similar in nature, there is every possibility of
an Internet user being confused and deceived in believing that both the domain names belong to one
common source and connection, although the two belongs to two different concerns.

In Tata Sons Limited and Anr Vs fashion ID Limited 3 the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi Court held that
"The use of the same or similar domain name may lead to a diversion of users which could result from
such users mistakenly accessing one domain name instead of another. This may occur in e-commerce with
its rapid progress and instant (and the erotically limitless) accessibility to users and potential customers
and particularly so in areas of specific overlap. Ordinary consumers/users seeking to locate the functions
available under one domain name may be confused if they accidentally arrived at a different but similar
web site which offers no such services. Such users could well conclude that the first domain name owner
had mis-represented its goods or services through its promotional activities and the first domain owner
would thereby lose their customer. It is apparent therefore that a domain name may have all the
characteristics of a trademark and could found an action for passing off"

2
1999 II AD (Delhi)
3
2005 140 PLR 12
 9

In Dr Reddy's Laboratories Limited Vs Manu Kosuri and Anr 4 , The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi Court
held that "It is a settled legal position that when a defendant does business under a name which is
sufficiently close to the name under which the plaintiff is trading and that name has acquired a reputation
the public at large is likely to be misled that the defendant's business is the business of the plaintiff or is a
branch or department of the plaintiff, the defendant is liable for an action in passing off and it is always
not necessary that there must be in existence goods of the plaintiff with which the defendant seeks to
confuse his own domain name passing off may occur in cases where the plaintiffs do not in fact deal with
the offending goods. When the plaintiffs and defendants are engaged in common or overlapping fields of
activity, the competition would take place and there is grave and immense possibility for confusion and
deception. The domain name serve same function as the trademark and is not a mere address or like finding
number of the Internet and, Therefore, plaintiff is entitled to equal protection as trade mark. The domain
name is more than a mere Internet address for it also identifies the Internet site to those who reach it. In
an Internet service, a particular Internet site could be reached by anyone anywhere in the world who
proposes to visit the said Internet site. In a matter where services rendered through the domain name in
the Internet, a very alert vigil is necessary and a strict view needs to be taken for its easy access and reach
by anyone from any corner of the world. The trademarks/domain name 'DR. REDDY'S' of the plaintiff
and 'drreddyslab.com' of the defendants are almost similar except for use of the suffix 'lab.com' in the
defendants domain use. The degree of the similarity of the marks usually is vitally important and
significant in an action for passing off as in such a case, there is every possibility and likelihood of
confusion and deception being caused. Considering both the domains' name, it is clear that two names
being almost identical or similar in nature, there is every possibility of an Internet user being confused and
deceived in believing that both the domain names belong to plaintiff although the two domain names
belong to two different concerns".

In Aqua Minerals Limited Vs Mr Pramod Borse & Anr 5 the Hon'ble High Court of Dehi Court has held
that Unless and until a person has a credible Explanation as to why did he choose a particular name for
registration as a domain name or for that purpose as a trade name which was already in long and prior
existence and had established its goodwill and reputation there is no other inference to be drawn than that
the said person wanted to trade in the name of the trade name he had picked up for registration or as a
domain name because of its being an established name with widespread reputation and goodwill achieved
at huge cost and expenses involved in the advertisement.

4
2001 (58) DRJ241
5
AIR2001 Delhi 467
 10

In Nestle India Limited Vs Mood Hospitality Pvt Limited 6 the Hon'ble High Court of Dehi Court has held
that in case of interim relief/injunction test of prima facie case as traditionally understood has been
replaced, at least in trade mark matters, by the test of comparative strengths of the rival cases. This is also
in keeping with the requirements of the said Act inasmuch as it not only describes what amounts to
infringement ( Section 29) but it also makes provision for what does not amount to infringement ( Section
30)......Thus, apart from examining the case in the context of Section 29 of the said Act only from the
standpoint of the respondent/ plaintiff, it was also incumbent upon the learned Single Judge to consider
the relative or comparative strength of the appellant's/defendant's case both under Section 29 and Section
30 (2) (a) of the said Act.

Starbucks Corporation v. Mohanraj (2009)

This case was related to the domain name in which domain www.Starbucks.co.in was very similar to the
complainant www.starbucks.in. It is contended by the complainant that the response is not having any
legitimate interest in the domain name and using it in bad faith.

While the respondents stated that at the time of registration the registrar(.in) did not ask for any document
to show for registration of trade and also said before the court that the complainant had neglected the
domain name dispute for four years and .co.in was available for use before .in extension was released. In
response to the argument given by the respondent, the company stated that the mere fact that at the time of
registering the domain with the name www.starbucks.co.in the .in registry did not ask anything did not
bestow upon him any absolute right to use the said domain. The complainant also stated before the
arbitrator that he has traded considerably the bonafide right to use the registered trademark Starbucks and
the respondent is not having any legitimate interest in the said domain.

The learned arbitrator, after hearing the arguments of both the complainant and respondent, held that the
disputed domain name is very similar and confusing to the complainant, and they had the right to the
trademark. While answering the question of legitimate interest, it was held by the arbitrator that the
respondent did not provide any positive and cogent reason to prove a legitimate interest in the said domain
neither provided any evidence for same therefore respondent had got the domain name registered in bad
faith and held that domain name to be transferred to the complainant (Starbucks).

Aqua Minerals Limited Vs. Mr. Pramod Borse & Anr (2001)

In this particular case, the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi ruled that Unless and until a person is having a
credible explanation as to why he choose a specific name for registering a domain or for that purpose as

6
2010 (42) PTC 514 (Del)
 11

a trading name that already existed in the market for a long time and had established its outstanding
reputation and goodwill there is no other inference to be drawn than that the said person wanted to trade
in the name of the trade name he had picked up for registration or as a domain name because of its being
an incorporated name with huge reputation and goodwill which is achieved at after incurring the huge
cost and which is involved in the advertisement of the company.

Google Inc. v. Gulshan Khatri (2017)

In this particular case, a complaint was filed to challenge the registration of the domain name” googlee.in”.
In the complaint, it was stated that the respondent domain name is conceptually, visually identical to the
complainant domain name and the respondent tries to ride on the goodwill of the complainant which is
built over the years. It was contended by the complainant that the responded domain name” googlee.in”
appeared immediately connected with the complainant. It was also contended that the domain name is used
for the search engine and would likely perceive the mind of the public and going to create confusion in the
mind of the public. The respondent registered the domain in the year 2007 while the complainant domain
name “google.in” was registered and serving the market way back from the year 1997.

The arbitrator in the present case stated the domain name” googlee.in” was identical to the prior registered
domain name and directed the registry to cancel the said domain name and transfer the said domain in
favour of the complainant.

Titan Industries Ltd v. Prashanth Koorapati & Others

This case has the distinction of being the original case decided by any Indian court to afford trademark
protection to domain names. This case was decided on 28 January, 1998.The litigant M/s.Titan Industries
Ltd had registered Tanishq as a trademark in 1994 for the assembly and promoting of watches and
jewellery in twenty-three different countries. The party Prashant Koorapati had registered tanishq.com
as a site name. The biggest objection is that the name is based on the plaintiff’s registered brand. It was
argued that customers would probably believe that the litigant is an associated affiliate of
the litigant. This could probably confuse and deceive the general public, ultimately steering business
traffic to the litigant. It had been argued that customers would probably believe that the mister Prashant
Koorapati is an associate affiliate of Titan Ltd. this could offer unfair gain and advantage to Mr Koorapati
at the expense of Titan Ltd. The Honorable city supreme court decided in favour of the claimant by
granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction stopping the litigant from abusing the exclusive name
“Tanishq”.
 12

Rediff Communication Limited v. Cyberbooth & Anr.

The litigant, Rediff Communication limited was an online media company, January 1997. It registered
the name “REDIFF.COM” IN February 1997 with Network Solutions, Inc. In March 1999, the
litigant came to know that the Defendants have obtained registration of the name “RADIFF. COM”.
The litigant filed a suit for cease-and-desist order restraining the Defendants from victimization the
mark/domain name ‘RADIFF’ or any name like the Plaintiff’s mark. The defendants’ intention is to
cause members of the general public to believe that the Defendants website was related
to the litigant and/or a part of the Rediff group with whom the words and mark
‘REDIFF’ area solely associated. The defendant contested that ‘RADIFF’ is coined by taking the
primary 3 letters of the word ‘radical’, the first letter of the word ‘information’, initial |the primary}
letter of the word ‘future’ and also the first letter of the word ‘free’. it’s contended that there’s no
similarity, deception or confusion between ‘REDIFF’ and ‘RADIFF’. Plaintiff’s website offers
services from news to searching whereas the defendants’ web site provides “hypertext links” to its
advertisers and thus no probability of similarity between the 2 websites within ordinary circumstances,
no user can connect with another website by mistake. Additionally, there was no proof provided by
the defendants. The key issue is concerning protecting the title on the net. The Hon’ble Bombay High
Court came to the conclusion that the name utilized by the litigant is a twin of the Plaintiff’s
and there’s a real risk that it may create deception and confusion.

Both the litigant and also the Defendants are operating on the websites by providing info of
comparable nature and involve in similar activities like the sale of books, music cassettes, flowers and
CD’s together with a conversation line and providing a cricket view poll. There may be little
doubt that hypertexts/domain names. ‘REDIFF’ of the litigant and ‘RADIFF’ of the
Defendants are virtually similar. once each domain names are considered it’s seen that 2 names
being virtually similar in nature there’s every risk of web users deceived in browsing that both domain
names belong to one common owner, even though both belong to completely different persons. The
court is clear that the sole object in adopting the name ‘RADIFF’ was to infringe upon the name of the
Plaintiff’s trademark. The argument that the sphere of activity is completely different is
additionally with no substance because the field of activity of the litigant and the Defendants is clearly
similar and overlapping. A site name is all but an online address and is entitled to equal protection as
a trademark.
 13

CONCLUSION

As a result, it can be inferred that a company’s domain name is significant. Some bodies see the
disputes relating to the domain, but if we see it in India or many developed countries, there is not
any particular law that protects the domain name. People usually register the domain names of well-
known organizations to get benefits from the holding domain, and similar domains cause havoc in
society. As more and more people are connecting to the internet, we need to strengthen the system
to reduce these practices. Domain name is an address of a website that is intended to help web users
easily find a person or business or organisation, online. Almost all businesses today have a domain
name registered and involve in promoting the same amongst its customers. Hence, domain names
often end up becoming a brand in itself and must be trademarked to prevent misuse. One problem
faced by many online businesses with popular domain names is Cybersquatting. Cybersquatting is
an offence related to the registration of a domain name by an entity that does not have an inherent
right or identical trademark registration in its favour, with the sole intention to sell them to the
legitimate user in order to earn illegal profits. In this article, we look at laws surrounding
cybersquatting in India.

One of the option available against cybersquatters in India is litigation in a court of law. The court
in India has also issued various injunction restraining cybersquatters from misusing domain names.
In the case of Rediff, the Bombay High Court granted an injunction restraining the defendant from
using the domain name “RADIFF” or any other similar name, as it was held that when both domain
names are considered, there is every possibility of internet users being confused and deceived into
believing that both domain names belong to one common source and connection. Also in the case
of Naukri.com, “Naukari.com” was held to be confusingly similar to that of the plaintiff,
“naukri.com”, with a different spelling variant establishing prima facie inference of bad faith.
 14

REFERENCE

• http://docs.manupatra.in/newsline/articles/Upload/54B3830D-2595-4148-80E3-
511F55C54A47.pdf

• https://www.ipandlegalfilings.com/domain-name-disputes-and-cybersquatting-in-india-part-
i/?utm_source=Mondaq&utm_medium=syndication&utm_campaign=LinkedIn-integration

• https://sectigostore.com/blog/what-is-cybersquatting-what-to-know-how-to-prevent-it/