Domain Names As Intellectual Property: Cybersquatting And The Enforcement Vacuum In India

Abstract

India’s internet economy is expanding at a pace its legal framework has failed to match. As more and more companies invest in digital identities, the registration of brand names in bad faith as domain names (cybersquatting) has become one of the country’s most damaging and under-regulated threats to intellectual property. India has to date been battling domain name abuse but there is no specific legislation to regulate it.

Indian courts have tried to fill this void. Domain names have been held to be protectable business identifiers by courts, from Yahoo! Inc. v. Akash Arora (1999) to Satyam Infoway Ltd. v. Sifynet Solutions (2004). Yet the existing framework still relies on passing off doctrine and arbitration-based remedies such as the INDRP. This creates major enforcement hurdles, particularly for startups and small businesses that struggle to prove goodwill, misrepresentation and damage before any relief can even be considered. Equally neglected is reverse domain hijacking, where corporations misuse dispute-resolution mechanisms to obtain legitimately registered domains from individuals. Indian law neither recognises this harm nor penalises bad-faith complainants.

The impact of this legislative vacuum was such that in Dabur India Limited v. Ashok Kumar & Ors. (2025), the Delhi High Court was required to give systemic directions regarding registrar accountability and e-KYC verification, while adjudicating on more than 1,100 infringing domain names, as there was no legislative guidance on such matters. In comparative jurisdictions, more structured responses are available. For example, the United States’ Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, 1999 provides for statutory damages and bad-faith criteria. The United Kingdom and Australia incorporate safeguards against abusive registrations and complaints.

This article advocates a separate Indian legislation recognising domain names as intellectual property, providing for clear civil remedies, statutory damages and protection from reverse domain hijacking based on these models. Without legislative reform, enforcement will continue to depend upon judicial improvisation rather than coherent digital governance.