Case Study On Domain Name Dispute


Published on

this is a presentation on domain name dispute case of tata and

1 Comment
No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Case Study On Domain Name Dispute

  1. 1. A case study in domain name dispute By – onkar singh 28 oct ,2009 [email_address]
  2. 2. Title <ul><li>A case study on domain name dispute Tata sons Ltd </li></ul>
  3. 3. Objectives <ul><li>To study a case related to Domain name dispute. </li></ul>
  4. 4. Introduction <ul><li>What is domain name - is an identification label that defines a realm of administrative autonomy, authority, or control in the  Internet , based on the  Domain Name System  (DNS) </li></ul><ul><li>Whenever human beings use a word to identify a business trademark law comes into play </li></ul><ul><li>Unique URL addresses </li></ul><ul><li>Internet protocol started as a series of numbers that were difficult to remember </li></ul><ul><li>Domain names started being used </li></ul><ul><li>Useful mnemonic means of locating specific computers on the Internet </li></ul>
  5. 5. Domain name hierarchy
  6. 6. Case <ul><li>. Tata sons Ltd </li></ul>
  7. 7. Detail of case <ul><li>Background </li></ul><ul><li>When /why issue arise </li></ul><ul><li>What are the effect </li></ul><ul><li>Decision </li></ul><ul><li>Effect of decision </li></ul>
  8. 8. BACK GROUND <ul><li>Tata Sons Limited under the Indian Companies Act, 1913 having its registered office at Bombay House, 24, Homi Mody Street, Mumbai – 400 001, India. </li></ul><ul><li>TATA Group of companies-India’s oldest, largest and best-known conglomerate, with a turnover that is over USD 62 Billion. Total turnover for 2007-08 is stated to be Rs.251,543 crores (USD 62.5 billion). </li></ul>
  9. 9. <ul><li> - Gurgoan based travel company that in a span of 8 years has garnered a wealth of experience and respect in the travel industry. </li></ul><ul><li>The pioneers of online travel services in India; leading travel website in the country, with over 2 million unique visitors each month choosing to use our travel services.   </li></ul>
  10. 10. MAKE MY TRIP .COM TO OK TATA BYE BYE .COM <ul><li>three years after  launched an online travel community  and called it </li></ul>
  11. 11. See the sites <ul><li>www. tata </li></ul><ul><li>www. tata </li></ul><ul><li> </li></ul><ul><li>www. tatas </li></ul><ul><li>www. tata </li></ul><ul><li>www. tata .in </li></ul><ul><li> </li></ul><ul><li> </li></ul>
  12. 12. Issue arise <ul><li>‘ TATA’ is a well-known and registered trademark and service mark over which Tata, being the registered proprietor had statutory rights as well as common law rights by virtue of a long and continuous use. </li></ul><ul><li>scope for confusion in the minds of relevant group of consumers . The use of the word ‘tata’ in the first part of the domain name could lead to consumers assuming it to be a site maintained by Tata </li></ul><ul><li>MakyMyTrip did not establish “any demonstrable preparation to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services” when it already had a site in connection with its business. </li></ul>
  13. 13. Who has deal the issue
  14. 14. Claimant says … <ul><li>The MakeMyTrip had “ ill intention” behind creation of  in order to infringe the intellectual property rights of its registered trademark/service mark ‘Tata’. </li></ul><ul><li>confusingly similar to its ‘Tata’ brand and the travel portal runner has no rights or legitimate interests to use it. </li></ul>
  15. 15. Respondent points.. <ul><li>Make my trip was an online travel portal rendering travel consultancy services, while community portal for travelers to share their experiences and give first-hand travel advice to other wanderlusts. </li></ul><ul><li>the word ‘tata’ had been used in a colloquial sense which is to bid adieu and this was clear from the way it had been placed between the words ‘ok’ and ‘bye bye’. </li></ul><ul><li>the word ‘tata’ could be found on practically every truck on an Indian highway and this was used in a generic sense . </li></ul>
  16. 16. ICANN <ul><li>Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN ) a non profit corporation is now responsible for co-ordinating the assignment of protocol, and management of the Domain Name system </li></ul><ul><li>Located - California, non-profit corporation that consists largely of Internet society members. created on September 18, 1998 in order to take over a number of Internet-related tasks previously performed on behalf of the US Government.  </li></ul><ul><li>First come-first served policy and put on hold if complaint made </li></ul>
  17. 17. URDP <ul><li>    Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy  is a policy adopted by ICANN that provides a mechanism for trademark owners to obtain domain names from cyber squatters.  </li></ul><ul><li>All domain name registrars have the power to grant “.com”, “.net”, and “.org” generic top-level domains must follow the UDRP.  </li></ul><ul><li>Domain name registrar will cancel, suspend, or transfer a domain name that is the subject of a trademark-based dispute, it must have an agreement signed by the parties, a court order.  </li></ul>
  18. 18. UDRP …. <ul><li>The UDRP created a streamlined &quot;cyber arbitration&quot; procedure to quickly resolve domain name ownership disputes that involve trademarks.  </li></ul><ul><li>All owners/registrants of “.com”, “.net”, and “.org” domain names are subject to the UDRP by virtue of the registration agreements agreed to with their registrars at the time of acquiring their domain names </li></ul>
  19. 19. DECISION <ul><li>(i) Discontinue use of domain name of </li></ul><ul><li>(ii) Transfer the aforesaid domain name to the Complainant in accordance with the applicable procedure </li></ul><ul><li>(iii) Refrain from all manner of use of the aforesaid domain name or any other mark, name, domain name, etc that is confusingly similar to the trademark of the Complainant. </li></ul>
  20. 20. Wipo domain name cases
  21. 21. WIPO direction <ul><li>As per directions issued by WIPO on August 24, 2009 the transfer of the domain name would not take place if MakeMyTrip went in for legal proceedings against Tata Sons in the matter within a period of 10 days. </li></ul>
  22. 22. Methodology <ul><li>search – Blog ,journal ,act , web search </li></ul><ul><li>Opinion on case study </li></ul><ul><li>Interpretation </li></ul><ul><li>Conclusion </li></ul>
  23. 23. Blogs <ul><li>Spicy ip </li></ul><ul><li>Watchdog </li></ul><ul><li>Trademark act </li></ul><ul><li>News paper </li></ul><ul><li>Rediff business - </li></ul>
  24. 24. Opinion …. <ul><li>Oktatabyebye in no way concerns tata as Ta Ta is the word used by everybody when they go out. Its not a name that they have used in their domain, they have used a verb (Tata denotes an action, the hand wave). The WIPO judgment is wrong. </li></ul><ul><li>  &quot;The business of oktatabyebye does not in any way compete with any known Tata Group business. The phrase Ok-Tata-Bye-Bye is a form of greeting and hence connects instinctively to travel. MakeMyTrip has never attempted to confuse their customers or travellers by soliciting them using any Tata product as the peg.“ deep </li></ul>
  25. 25. Opinion …… <ul><li>This domain has to be transferred to tatas asap... Kumar lawyer </li></ul><ul><li>The name tata itself is not the sole property of tata sons. There are sites like which is for a cafe which has been running from years ago.- pavan sastry </li></ul><ul><li>will tata sue every lorry owner in the country? </li></ul>
  26. 26. Conclusion <ul><li>good bye Tata company name </li></ul><ul><li>No commercial use commercial use </li></ul><ul><li>no violation violation </li></ul>
  27. 27. Conclusion <ul><li>Tata will not sue all the lorry holder </li></ul><ul><li>Violation of right happened </li></ul><ul><li>Before the sue anybody can use but after the sue owner will use as they are using </li></ul><ul><li>Ignorance is no bliss </li></ul>
  28. 28. Valuable opinion …. <ul><li>Shri Pavan Duggal , Cyberlaw Consultant,President, Cyberlaws. ,member ICANN </li></ul><ul><li>Prof. Vivekanannd , Rajiv Gandhi School of Intellectual Property Law-IITK Kharagpur   </li></ul><ul><li>Dr D.Rama Rao Head Information and Communication Management Division, NAARM </li></ul><ul><li>Dr.R.Kalpana Sastry Principal Scientist Agricultural Research Systems Management and Policies Division,  NAARM </li></ul><ul><li>Prof . Nawaz – asian school of cyber law </li></ul>
  29. 29. Reference <ul><li> </li></ul><ul><li>case detail by wipo domain s/decisions/.../d2009-0646.html </li></ul><ul><li> </li></ul><ul><li> oktatabyebye -name-confusing-makemytrip-loses- case -against- tata </li></ul><ul><li> </li></ul><ul><li>Rediff business - </li></ul>
  30. 30. Reference.. <ul><li> ta ta word meaning </li></ul><ul><li> </li></ul><ul><li>The hindu busnessline - </li></ul>
  31. 31. Now….. <ul><li>Open for discussion … </li></ul>
  32. 32. <ul><li>. </li></ul>
  33. 33. Last words ….no commercial use <ul><li>. </li></ul>
  34. 34. Disclaimer .. <ul><li>I declare that . The content which I have used in my presentation for study purpose only no any purpose . The opinion which are present in this presentation it is not any legal opinion. </li></ul><ul><li>for further detail you can content .. Onkar singh on [email_address] </li></ul><ul><li>( post graduate student of intellectual property and technology management at national academy of agricultural research management . Hyderabad ) </li></ul>