Trademark Law and Domain Name System: The Conflict Unveiled
Keywords:
Domain names, cyberspace, jurisdiction, trademarks, territory, competitive market, e-commerce, internet, website, brand namesAbstract
In the competitive markets of today the significance of trademarks and brand names is very high. The protection of trademarks is said to be a “piece of legal underpinning to an essential economic process. But the trademark law has been influenced tremendously in the present day internet environment. Technologies are changing so fast that even the speed of light seems threatened. Business worldwide have started to realize the significant potential of websites as a primary means of facilitating electronic commerce and this the phenomenal growth of internet as a commercial medium has brought about new set of concerns in the realm of intellectual property Now e-commerce and trading through internet, has become part of the present day economy and for every commercial organization to survive, a presence in internet, a website is imperative. Since websites should have an address to be located, so in order to facilitate this job, domain names become necessary. Thus, a new concept has arisen in the cyberspace in relation to trademark in real space i.e. domain names. Domain names play the same role in cyberspace as the trademark plays in real space and it can be seen that in short span of time the conflict between trademark and domain names, have crept up and this tension has lead to innumerable issues that raise serious questions regarding policy. These policy questions arise because of system of internet, which does not respect any boundaries, cannot reconcile with the system designed for physical and territorial world. An attempt has been made in this paper to analyze the nature of conflict between trademark law and domain name system ,types of the disputes which arise because of such conflict and jurisdictional problems of cyberspace .As the fact cannot be overlooked that the intersection of domain name system (DNS) and intellectual property system is but one example of larger phenomena: the intersection of global medium, in which traffic circulates without cognizance of borders with territorially based system that emanate from Sovereign authority of the territory.
References
1. P.S. Sangal, Trademarks and Domain Names: Some Recent Developments, JIPRL (2020) 32–49 © Law Journals 2020. All Rights Reserved Page 47 1999. p. 36
2. Sourab Goash, Domain Name Dispute and Evaluation of ICANN’s URDP, Journal of Intellectual Property Right (JIPR) Sep. 2004. p. 425.
3. V.K. Unni, Trademark Law and Emerging Concept of Cyber Property Rights, Ist Ed., 2002 Eastern Book House p.
4. See report of WIPO entitled “The Management of Internet Names and Addresses: Intellectual Property Issue”. Full text available on http://wipo2.wipo. int/process1/report/finalreport.html
5. WCVBTV V. Boston Athletic Association, 17 US PQ 2d (BNA) 168 - 169.
6. Prestonets Inc v. Coty, 264 us 359, 368 (1924
7. Mead Data Central Inc v. Toyota Motor Sales USA Inc 875 f. 2nd 1026, 1031. Mead’s lexus mark and Toyota lexus mark could exist in two different places because of lack of market overlap.
8. See Yahoo Inc . V. Akash Arora 1999 IPLR 196, noting that an internet site could be reached by anyone anywhere in the world who proposes to visit to said internet site (pg. 208) also see Rediff Communication v. Cyberbooth AIR 2000 Bom. at 27. Internet is one of importan t features of information revolution
9. Gayle Weiswasser, Domain Names, the Internet and Trademarks: Infringement in Cyber space, Computer and High Technology Law Journal vol. (13) 1997 at p. 140.
10. Farooq Ahmad, Domain Name Disputes and Trademark Law: Cyber L aw in India (Law of Internet), 2001, Pioneer Books p. 139.
11. See Andre Brunel, Billions Registered But No Rules: Scope of Trademark Protection for Internet Domain Names, Journal of Intellectual Proprietary Rights, March 1995, p. 4. (Stating that although the words “wire” and “wired” look quite different on paper the technology of internet cannot yet allow this differentiation to translate to domain name address).
12. Supra Note 10 p. 14
13. See Howard B. Stravitz, Symposium, Personal Jurisdiction in Cyberspace: Something More is Required on the Electronic Stream of Commerce, 49 S.C.L. Rev.925 (1998).
14. Andrew E. Costa, Comment, Minimum Contacts in Cyberspace: A Taxonomy of the Case law, 35 House. L. Rev. 453, 455 - 56 (1998).
15. Charlotte Waelde, Domain Names and Trademark: What is in a name p. 63. Also see Farooq Ahmad, Domain Name Disputes, Cyber Law in India (law of Internet), Ist Ed. 2000 Pioner Books, p. 140.
16. Richard L. Baum an d Robert C. Combow, First Use Test in Internet Domain Name Disputes, 18 NATL. LJ, Feb. 12, 1996, p. 18.
17. Graham J. H. Smith, Internet Law and Regulation 2nd Ed. 1999, p. 47.
18. satyam Infoway Ltd v. Sifynet solutions Pvt. Ltd (2004) 6. See 145 in this Case the S/C observed that original role of domain names was no doubt to provide an address for computers on the internet, but the internet has now developed from a mere means of Communications to a mode of carrying an commercial activities therefore Domain Name n ot only serves as an address but also identifies the specific internets site.
19. Supra Note 17. p. 30
20. David Yen, Virtual Reality: Can We Ride Trademark Law To Surf Cyberspace? Fordham I.P.M.E.L.J (2000) Vol. 10. 871Domain names are highly valued. Because mill ions of Internet users may potentially view them. See Jerome Gilson, Trademark Protection & Practice §5.11(1)(1997). Similarly, in Cardservice Int'l v. Mc. Gee, 1950 F. Supp. 737, 741 (E.D. va 1997), it was laid down that a domain name mirroring a corporat e name may be a valuable corporate asset, as it facilitates communication with a customer base
21. See card-service int' L v. MC Gee, 950F. Supp. 737, 741 (E.D. Va 1997
22. For cases on the point -see Haidiram Bhujiawala V. Anand Kumar Deepak JIPRL (2020) 32–49 © Law Journals 2020. All Rights Reserved Page 48 Kumar 200 (1) Arb. LR 531 se at PP535, Kamal Trading Co. V. Gillette UK Ltd. (1988) ILPR 135; Ham Par Bros International Ltd. v. Tiger Bairn Co. (P) Ltd. and ors 1996 PTC 311; Apple computer Inc v. Apple leasing K. Industries (1993) IJLPR 63; Willium Grant K Sons Ltd. v. MC DoweH and Co. Ltd. I.A. No. 9721 of 1993 in Suite No. 2532 of 1993 Judgement dated 27-05-94.
23. Section 27 (b)
24. 985 F Supp. 949 959-60 (C. D. Cal. 1997).
25. No. 97-55467 1998 WL 178553 at 1 (9th cir Apr.177598
26. Panavision Int. L. v. Toeppen, No. 97 - 55467, 1998 WL 178553 at 1.
27. 189 F. 3d 868, 980 (9th Cir. 1999).
28. Supra note 40
29. 945 F. Supp. 1296. 1303 (C.D.Cal. 1996)
30. 42 U.S.P.Q. 2d at 1446
31. 42 U.S.P.Q. 2d at 1446
32. 993 F. Supp. 282, 308 (D.N.J.) aff'd, 159 F. 3d 1351 (3d Cir. 1998)
33. Corn Products Refining Co. v. Shangrila Food Products Ltd. AIR 1960 SC 142.
34. AIR 1984 Bom.218 See also Sachdeva and Sons v. Loti Ram Makhan Lal 2000 PTC 20; Om Prakash Mahjan and Narinder Kumar Mahajan v. Hero Cycles Limited 1999 P TC 23; Visnudas Kishandes v. Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co. Ltd. AIR 1996 SC 2275.
35. No.96-0213 WMB, 1996 WL 376600 at I (C.D.Cal. Apr.26, 1996)
36. No. C96 -I30 WD, 1996 WL 84853 at I (W. D. Wash. Feb. 9, 1996)
37. 15U.S.C. § 1125 (c)
38. 141CONG. REC. S19, 312 d. Dec.29, 1995) (Statement of Sen. Leahy)
39. 15 U.S.C. § 1127 ( Supp.IV 1998) ( defining dilution)
40. Supra Note 48.
41. Supra Note 58
42. 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10359 at (E.D. va. Feb. 2, 1998)
43. Kedar Nath Gupta v JK Organization 1998 PTC 189; Hiralai Parbhuda: v. M/S Ganesh Trading Co. AIR 1984 Bom. 218.
44. AIR 2000 Bom. 27 See; also, Jews for Jesus v. Brodsky 993 F. Supp. 282-308.
45. Yahoo Inc v. Akash Arora IPLR 1999 April 96.
46. Supreme Bedi Factory v. Ardath Tahacco Company Ltd. (1999) PTC (19) 150 at151; Punjab Tractors Limited v. Pramod Garg 2000 PTC 260 at 276; Heralal Prebudas v. M/S Ganesh Trading Co. AIR 1984 Bom. 218
47. 287 F 2d492, 495 (2nd Cir 1961)
48. Supra note 45
49. F. Supp. 2d 436,437 (D. Mass. 1999)
50. F Supp". 2d 542, 5.52 (E.D. Pa. 1999
51. 174 F.3d at 1061-65
52. Supra note 44
53. 1999 WL 311707 at2J S.D. JFla. Max 15, 1999
54. See Howard B. Stravitz, Symposium, Personal Jurisdiction in Cyberspace: Something More is Required on the Electronic Stream of Commerce, 49 S.C.L. Rev.925 (1998).
55. Farooq Ahmad, Cyber Law in India (Law on Internet) 2001, Pioneer Books p. 166
56. Andrew E. Costa, Comment, Minimum Contacts in Cyberspace: A Taxonomy of the Case law, 35 House. L. Rev. 453, 455 - 56 (1998)
57. Veronica M. Sanchez, Taking A Byte out of Minimum Contacts: A Reasonable Exercise of Personal Jurisdiction in Cyberspace Trademark Disputes 46UCLA Law Review 1671 (1999) at P 1685.
58. David R. Johnson & David Post, Law and Borders - The Rise of Law in Cyberspace 48 Sant. L. Rev. 1367 (1996) at 1367.
59. Thomes P. Vartanian: -A US Perspective on The Global Jurisdictional Check Points in Cyberspace, available at file:/A MickyAc My Documents farJuly 7.htm at p5
60. Helicopteros Nacionales de Columbia v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 414-416 (1984).
61. International Shoe Co. v. Washington 326 US 310, 318 (1945)
62. Shaffer v. Heintner 433 U.S. 186, 204 (1977)
63. CompuServe, Inc. v. Patterson 89 F.3d 1257 (6th Cir. 1996).
64. Shareware is software that is distributed free on a trial basis with the und erstanding that the user may need or want to pay for it later. Some software developers offer a JIPRL (2020) 32–49 © Law Journals 2020. All Rights Reserved Page 49 shareware version of their program with a built-in expiration date (after 30 days, the user can no longer get access to the program). Other shareware (sometimes called lite ware ) is offered with certain capabilities disabled as an enticement to buy the complete version of the program. See, http://searchvb.techtarget.com/sDefi nition/ 0, sid8_gci212977, 00.html.
65. Cybersell, Inc. v. Cybersell, Inc. et al., 130 F.3d 414 (9th Cir. 1997).
66. Maritz, Inc. v. CyberGold, Inc., 947 F. Supp. 1328 (E.D. Mo. 1996).
67. Zippo Manufacturing Company v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc., 952 F. Supp. 1119 (W.D.Pa., Jan 16, 1997).
68. Cybersell, Inc. v. Cybersell, Inc. et a/., 130 F.3d 414 (9th Cir. 1997
69. Bensusan Restaurant Corp. v. King 937 F. Supp. 296 (S.D.N.Y.1996).
70. Maritz, Inc. v. CyberGold, Inc., 947 F. Supp. 1328 (E.D. Mo. 1996).
71. Panavision Int'l, L.P. v. Toeppen, 938 F. Supp. 616 (CD. Cal. 1996).
72. Pankaj Jan and Panday Sangeet Rai, Copyright and Trademark Laws Relating to Computers, Ist Ed. 2005, Eastern Book Company, p. 205
73. S. K. Sharma and Raman Mittal, Legal Dimensions in Cyber Space p. 290
74. Case No. 1672 of 1999: See, presentation of P. Anand, Partner, Anand and An and, WIPO International Conference on Electronic Commerce and Intellectual Property (September 1999), available at, http://ecommerce.wipiant/meetings/1999/ index.htnl
75. Sec. 13 of Civil Procedure Court Mentions these exceptions. According to Section 13. “A foreign judgement shall be conclusive as to any matter thereby directly adjudicated upon between the same parties or between party under whom they or any of them claim litigating under the same title except: a. where it has not been pronounced by the court of competent jurisdiction. b. where it has not been given on the merits of the case. c. where it appears on the face of the proceedings to be founded on a incorrect view of international law or a refusal to recognize the law of (India) in cases in which such law is applicable; d. where the proceedings in which the judgements were obtained are opposed to national justice. e. where it has been obtained by fraud. f. Where it sustains a claim founded on a breach of any law in force in (India).” Cite this Article Gulafroz Jan. Trademark Law and Domain Name System: The Conflict Unveiled . Law. 2020; 3(1): 32–49p.
