The recent domain dispute involving jiohotstar.com has sparked a broader online discussion, highlighting a familiar narrative of “big corporation versus individual.” While some recognized the legal underpinnings of the issue, much of the debate centred on the perception that Reliance Jio should have accommodated the individual’s request. However, this situation exemplifies domain squatting—where individuals/company register internet domains containing well-known brand names or company identifiers intending to sell them for profit. Granting such requests could set a precedent, potentially inviting a surge in similar domain squatting attempts.

An individual based out of Delhi not affiliated with Reliance Jio or Disney+ Hotstar registered the domain jiohotstar.com, a year ago foreseeing a potential merger between Jio and Hotstar. Unbeknownst to this individual and the common man, the unauthorized use of these trademarks even in a domain name amounts to cybersquatting, trademark infringement, and passing off.

Evidently, the disputed domain is of importance to Reliance / Disney Hotstar and the matter will be decided under the UDRP mechanism (Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy). For successful transfer of the domain, the following three elements have to be established:

  • Paragraph 4(a)(i): The domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights.
  • Paragraph 4(a)(ii): The registrant has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name.
  • Paragraph 4(a)(iii): The domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

In my view, Reliance has fulfilled all the requirements – as the domain contains two well recognized marks, the individual had no intention to legitimately use the domain and to top it all he declared his intent publicly, which is to extort money.

Rather than considering the matter as a PR problem for the corporates, (that’s how the word is going around on social media), we need to look at this problem as a simple theft. However noble cause a theft was made, the act qualifies as illegal. In present case, he is neither an innocent domain squatter, nor a habitual domain squatter (as far as our knowledge goes), however accepting his request will be detrimental to the corporations.

It has become a common perception mistakenly believing that it’s acceptable to register domains that incorporate registered trademarks, seeing it as a harmless endeavour or a free territory on the internet. However, courts have consistently found that domain names act as extensions of a business’s identity, much like a storefront or brand logo. Registering a domain with a well-recognized trademark without authorization can mislead consumers and damage the reputation of the trademark owner. Under frameworks like the Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy (UDRP) and trademarks law, the law treats these domains as potential infringements. Bad-faith registrations—where individuals acquire domains to resell them to the trademark owner or capitalize on brand recognition—are classic examples of domain squatting, which these laws aim to prevent. As jurisprudence evolves and intermediaries gain more liability, enforcement against domain squatters is becoming stronger, protecting brand integrity and preventing misuse.

Written by  Rohit Magesh