In the bustling digital marketplace of domain names, where virtual real estate can be worth millions, an unlikely story unfolded last weekend involving a young Delhi developer's ambitious gamble, two philanthropic children from Dubai, and one of India's most powerful corporations.
The saga begins with a dream and a domain name: JioHotstar.com. When whispers of a potential merger between streaming giants JioCinema and Hotstar began circulating through India's tech corridors, a resourceful app developer from Delhi saw an opportunity. Armed with entrepreneurial spirit and hopes of funding their Cambridge MBA dreams, they* registered the domain in 2023, anticipating a windfall of over one crore rupees from Reliance Industries.
(*We do not know the gender of the techie)
"When I saw this domain become available, I felt things might just fall into place. My intention of buying this domain was simple: if this merger happens, I might be able to fulfill my dream of studying at Cambridge," the message on JioHotstar.com landing page read.
But corporate giants don't always play along with individual dreamers.
Soon after the note went viral, the developer updated the website with another note, this time alleging that Reliance has threatened legal action against them.
Then the saga took an unexpected turn. Realising the battle was unsustainable, the developer ended up selling the domain to Dubai siblings, 13-year-old Jainam and 10-year-old Jivika Jain.
The siblings repurposed the site to document their philanthropic journey, stating they bought it to support the developer’s goals and promote "kindness and positivity."
During their summer holidays in India, Jainam and Jivika undertook a "Seva journey" for 50 days, connecting with children from diverse backgrounds and inspiring them to dream big. They mentioned that donations received during their travels helped them buy the JioHotstar.com domain to “support a young software developer from Delhi.”
"We wanted to support a young software developer from Delhi," the siblings stated, explaining their purchase of the controversial domain. They claim that their intention is to transform what began as a corporate chess piece into a platform documenting their philanthropic adventures.
The siblings began their YouTube channel in 2017, initially unboxing toys before shifting their focus to educational science content.
So, does this mean the fight for the domain name is over for Reliance? Maybe not.
Ayushi Harsh, intellectual property lawyer associated with Samvad Partners, told BOOM that Reliance still has options to take legal action or file a complaint against the siblings to seek the cancellation or transfer of the disputed domain as prescribed under the Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy (UDRP), a global mechanism for resolving domain name disputes.
"Additionally, the influencers could also face liability under Indian trademark laws, as both 'Jio' and 'Hotstar' are registered trademarks in India," she added. It is important to note that they could face claims under Indian trademark law only if the domain or content targets Indian consumers or misleads them about an association with Jio or Hotstar; or if the influencers have business ties with India.
While the Delhi-based developer’s quick actions earned praise on social media, legal experts labeled it a clear case of cybersquatting.
Is cybersquatting legal?
So, what is cybersquatting? Cybersquatting involves registering, using, or selling a domain name to profit from someone else’s trademark. It is regarded as an unethical and illegal practice. IP lawyer Akshay Ajayakumar explained to BOOM that cybersquatters typically register domains similar to well-known trademarks or high-profile individuals' names, intending to sell them back at inflated prices.
India has seen past cybersquatting cases, such as Aqua Minerals Limited v. Mr. Pramod Borse & Anr., where Aqua Minerals discovered that the defendants had illegally registered the domain name "bisleri.com" before them.
Ajayakumar noted that the JioHotstar.com case fits this pattern, as a third party registered the domain without rights, hoping to sell it at a higher value. “It doesn’t matter what the money will be used for,” he emphasised, pointing out that the intent to profit defines cybersquatting.
As Harsh explained, cybersquatting comes in various forms, including typo squatting (using misspelled domains to mislead users), identity theft (copying a brand’s website), name jacking (impersonating celebrities), and reverse cybersquatting (falsely claiming a trademark).
"The Jio-Hotstar case aligns with identity theft aimed at financial gain," she said.
Cybersquatting resembles domain flipping, a legal practice where individuals buy domains with potential market appeal, enhance their value, and sell them without targeting specific trademarks. Highlighting the difference, Ajayakumar stated, "Cybersquatting involves registering domains that imitate trademarks or names, intending to profit by selling them to the rightful owners."
Does the timing of domain registration matter?
Advocate Ajayakumar emphasised that “timing is crucial in determining these cases”, as in legitimate domain flipping, registrants often are unaware of existing trademarks, indicating good faith. However, in this instance, “the bad faith of the registrant was evident when he registered third-party trademarks”.
Referring to the Telstra v. Nuclear Marshmallows case, he explained that the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) ruled that merely holding a domain without use can constitute bad faith if there’s no legitimate reason for the registration, especially when the domain resembles a well-known trademark. “In this case, the registrant’s intent to sell the domain makes it a blatant example of bad faith,” he stated.
In the Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows case, Telstra, an Australian telecommunication company, sued Nuclear Marshmallows for registering the domain 'telstra.com.au,' claiming it was confusingly similar to its trademark and registered in bad faith.
Ajayakumar further pointed out that both the 'Jio' and 'Hotstar' trademarks were registered before the domain acquisition. “The time of merger is irrelevant,” he added, as either Jio or Hotstar can support a successful domain dispute complaint.
Harsh also noted that the timing of registration may not serve as a valid defense if the claimant can establish certain grounds in their cybersquatting claim, such as:
-The domain name must be identical or similar to a trademark owned by the claimant.
-The registrant must have no rights or legitimate interests in the domain.
-The domain must be registered and used in bad faith.
What legal remedies exist for cybersquatting?
Unlike the US, which has the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, India lacks specific laws addressing cybersquatting. However, Harsh highlighted that domain names are considered trademarks under the Indian Trademark Act, 1999. "Anyone using an identical or similar domain name may be liable for trademark infringement under Section 29 of the Act," she said.
Under the Trademark Act, Indian courts have ruled in favor of trademark owners, as seen in Yahoo! Inc. v. Akash Arora & Anr., where the Delhi High Court found that Arora’s use of "YahooIndia" likely confused users and infringed upon Yahoo's trademark.
The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) has also addressed cybersquatting globally. In 1999, it adopted the Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy (UDRP), providing an arbitration process for resolving domain disputes instead of litigation.
Ajayakumar opined that the UDRP is often more beneficial for resolving domain disputes, offering a streamlined, faster, and cost-effective process compared to traditional litigation. Unlike court proceedings, which can be lengthy and expensive, the UDRP focuses solely on domain name and trademark issues. “The entire process can be completed in a matter of months,” he added.
Discussing the UDRP, Harsh noted that while it has fast-tracked the resolution of domain name disputes, “the remedies available are limited to the cancellation or transfer of the disputed domain name and do not include monetary compensation for the prevailing party."
In 2009, journalist Barkha Dutt had filed a complaint under the UDRP seeking the transfer of the domain www.barkahdutt.com, which had been registered by Hyderabad-based cybersquatter, Easyticket. The complainant successfully demonstrated all required grounds during the administrative proceedings, leading to the panel ordering the transfer of the disputed domain name to her.
As the story continues to unfold, Reliance still holds cards to play. Under the UDRP, they could seek transfer or cancellation of the domain. But for now, what began as a developer's ambitious gambit has transformed into a platform for childhood philanthropy—though how long this transformation will last remains to be seen.