The domain dispute procedures — INDRP for .in, UDRP for .com — are the first tool for a squatted domain, and usually the last. But they transfer one domain at a time, award no damages, and cannot reach a registrant who moves the operation to a new name every week. For those cases, and for genuine disputes between competing claimants, the Indian courts are the forum, and they have been treating domain names as trademarks for over two decades.
Quick reference
| Legal basis | Trademark infringement, where the mark is registered; passing off in every case |
| Leading authority | Satyam Infoway (Supreme Court, 2004): a domain name can be a trademark, and passing off applies |
| Remedies | Interim and permanent injunction; direction to transfer or cancel the domain; damages and costs; delivery up |
| Against whom | The registrant; the registrar and registry, for implementation; unknown persons, by John Doe order |
| Court | Where the plaintiff carries on business, under the home-court rule for trademark and copyright suits |
| Criminal | Where the domain is used for phishing, impersonation or fraud |
The law
India has no statute aimed at cybersquatting. What it has is the Supreme Court’s decision in Satyam Infoway v Sifynet (2004), which held that a domain name does what a trademark does — identifies the source of goods or services on the internet — and that the law of passing off protects it. A domain confusingly similar to a business’s name or mark, used in a way likely to divert or confuse users, is actionable exactly as a confusingly similar mark on goods would be. Where the mark is registered, the owner also sues for infringement under the Trade Marks Act, and the use of a mark as a domain name is use of the mark.
The courts have applied this to every kind of case since: classic squatting for resale, typosquatting, domains used to impersonate the brand, domains used by former distributors and franchisees, and domains registered by competitors to capture traffic.
When a court action is the better route
- Damages are wanted. The dispute procedures give none. A court can award compensation and, for deliberate squatting or fraud, punitive damages and costs.
- The problem is a pattern. A registrant with dozens of domains, or one who re-registers under a new name after each transfer, is stopped by an injunction that binds the person, not the domain, and by a John Doe order against unknown persons registering confusingly similar names.
- The domain is part of a wider infringement — a copycat website, counterfeit sales, a fake app — that needs a single set of orders.
- The other side has a genuine claim. Two businesses with a real dispute over a name are not squatting cases; the procedures are designed for clear abuse, and panels dismiss the rest without prejudice to litigation.
- Speed and surprise. An ex parte interim injunction, with an order to the registrar to lock or suspend the domain, can be obtained in days where the harm is ongoing — faster than the domain procedures in an urgent case.
What the court can order
Injunctions, interim and final, restraining the registrant from using the domain or any confusingly similar name. Directions to transfer the domain to the plaintiff, or to cancel it, addressed to the registrant and, for implementation, to the registrar and — for .in domains — the Registry, which Indian courts routinely join as parties or direct. Indian courts have also directed foreign registrars and registries with a presence in India to give effect to transfer and blocking orders. Damages or an account of profits; costs; and delivery up of infringing material.
Where the domain hosts an infringing site, the same suit can order blocking by internet service providers, and — for piracy and rogue sites — a dynamic injunction that extends to mirror and redirect domains as they appear.
Where to sue
A registered proprietor or copyright owner can sue where it carries on business, whether or not the registrant is there, under the home-court rule. Suits above the commercial-court threshold go to the commercial court or commercial division; in Delhi, Madras and Calcutta the High Court’s intellectual property division. Where the registrant is abroad and the domain is a .com, service and enforcement are harder, and the dispute procedure may be the practical choice for the transfer with the court reserved for the injunction and damages against any Indian party.
The criminal angle
Where a domain is used for phishing, impersonation or fraud — a fake bank login, a copy of the brand’s site taking payments, a lookalike email domain — the conduct is criminal under the Information Technology Act and the general criminal law, and a complaint to the cyber-crime police, alongside the civil suit, can lead to the domain being taken down and the operators traced. Trademark and copyright infringement are themselves criminal offences, and a domain used to sell counterfeits engages those provisions too.
Practical points
- Record the evidence before acting: dated screenshots of the site, WHOIS, the registrant’s offer to sell, the confusion it has caused.
- Consider whether the domain procedure and a suit should run together — a suit for damages after an INDRP transfer is common; a suit that concedes the domain to the procedure and pursues the rest in court is also common.
- Register the brand as a trademark, if it is not already. Infringement is a far simpler case than passing off, and it unlocks the home-court rule and the criminal provisions.
- Register the obvious domains defensively. A court order is a poor substitute for owning the name in the first place.
Frequently asked questions
Is cybersquatting illegal in India? There is no specific cybersquatting law, but the Supreme Court has held that domain names are protected by trademark law. Registering or using a domain confusingly similar to another’s mark is actionable as passing off, and as infringement where the mark is registered.
Can an Indian court order a domain to be transferred? Yes. Courts direct registrants to transfer domains and direct registrars and the .IN Registry to implement the transfer, and have made such orders against foreign registrars with a presence in India.
Should I sue or file an INDRP or UDRP complaint? For a single clearly abusive domain, the dispute procedure is faster and cheaper. Where damages are wanted, the squatting is a pattern, the domain is part of a wider infringement, or the other side has a genuine claim, a court action is the better route, sometimes alongside the procedure.
Can I get damages for cybersquatting in India? Only from a court. The dispute procedures give transfer or cancellation but no damages. Courts have awarded damages and costs against squatters, including punitive damages for deliberate conduct.
What if the squatter keeps registering new domains? A court injunction binds the person, and a John Doe order can restrain unknown persons from registering confusingly similar domains, with directions to the registry. The dispute procedures cannot do this.
What if the domain is being used for phishing or fraud? That is a criminal matter under the Information Technology Act and the general criminal law, in addition to the civil claim. A complaint to the cyber-crime police can result in the domain being taken down and the operators traced.
Useful official resources
- .IN Registry — dispute resolution — for the parallel procedure
- National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal — for phishing and fraud complaints
See our related notes on the INDRP process, trademark infringement and passing off.
A domain dispute that the arbitration route cannot fix? Talk to us.