A story about two child philanthropists and the dream of one developer

In the bustling digital marketplace of domain names, where virtual real estate can be worth millions, an unlikely story unfolded last weekend about the ambitious gamble of a young developer from Delhi, two philanthropic kids from Dubai and one of India’s most powerful companies.

The saga begins with a dream and a domain name: JioHotstar.com. When rumors of a possible merger between streaming giants JioCinema and Hotstar started circulating across India’s tech corridors, a resourceful app developer from Delhi saw an opportunity. Armed with an entrepreneurial spirit and hoping to fund his Cambridge MBA dreams, they registered the domain in 2023, anticipating a windfall of over one crore rupees from Reliance Industries.

“When I saw this domain become available, I felt like everything would fall into place. My intention in purchasing this domain was simple: if this merger goes through, maybe I can realize my dream of studying at Cambridge,” thus read the message on JioHotstar .com landing page.

But corporate giants don’t always play along with individual dreamers.

Soon after his note went viral, the developer updated the website with another note, this time claiming that Reliance had threatened legal action against them.

Then the story took an unexpected turn. Realizing that the battle was untenable, the developer eventually sold the domain to siblings in Dubai, 13-year-old Jainam and 10-year-old Jivika Jain.

The siblings once again used the site to document their philanthropic journey, stating that they purchased it to support the developer’s goals and promote “kindness and positivity.”

During their summer vacation in India, Jainam and Jivika undertook a 50-day ‘Seva journey’, connecting with children from different backgrounds and inspiring them to dream big. They said donations received during their travels helped them purchase 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 their intention is to transform what started as a corporate chess piece into a platform documenting their philanthropic adventures.

The siblings started their YouTube channel in 2017, initially unboxing toys before shifting their focus to educational science content.

Does this mean that the domain name battle for Reliance is over? Maybe not.

Ayushi Harsh, an intellectual property lawyer associated with Samvad Partners, told BOOM that Reliance still has the option to take legal action or file a complaint against the siblings to seek the cancellation or transfer of the disputed domain requests, as prescribed under the Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy (UDRP), a global mechanism for resolving domain name disputes.

“Moreover, the influencers may also be held liable under Indian trademark laws as both ‘Jio’ and ‘Hotstar’ are registered trademarks in India,” she added. It is important to note that under Indian trademark law, they may only face claims 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 were praised on social media, legal experts termed it as a clear case of cybersquatting.

Is cybersquatting legal?

What is cyber squatting? Cybersquatting involves registering, using or selling a domain name to profit from someone else’s trademark. It is considered an unethical and illegal practice. IP lawyer Akshay Ajayakumar explained to BOOM that cybersquatters typically register domains that resemble well-known trademarks or high-profile names of individuals, with the intention of selling them back at high prices.

India has seen previous cybersquatting cases such as Aqua Minerals Limited v Mr. Pramod Borse & Anr., where Aqua Minerals discovered that the defendants before them had illegally registered the domain name “bisleri.com”.

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 stressed, noting that the intention to make a profit defines cybersquatting.

As Harsh explained, cybersquatting comes in several forms including crack typo (using misspelled domains to mislead users), identity theft (copying from a brand’s website), name jacking (impersonating celebrities), and reverse cyber squatting (falsely claiming a trademark).

“The Jio-Hotstar case is consistent with identity theft aimed at financial gain,” she said.

Cybersquatting is similar to domain flipping, a legal practice in which individuals purchase domains that are potentially attractive to the marketplace, increase their value, and sell them without targeting specific trademarks. Highlighting the difference, Ajayakumar stated, “Cybersquatting involves registering domains that imitate trademarks or names with the intention of making a profit by selling them to their rightful owners.”

Does the time of domain registration matter?

Attorney Ajayakumar emphasized that “timing is critical in assessing these cases,” as registrants are often unaware of existing trademarks when flipping legitimate domains, which indicates good faith. In this case, however, “the registrant’s bad faith was evident when registering third-party trademarks.”

Referring to the case of Telstra v. Nuclear Marshmallows, he explained that the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) has ruled that merely owning a domain without use can constitute bad faith if there is no legitimate reason for the registration, especially if the domain resembles a well-managed domain. 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 case of Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, Telstra, an Australian telecommunications company, sued Nuclear Marshmallows for registering the domain ‘telstra.com.au’, claiming that it was confusingly similar to its trademark and had been registered in bad faith .

Ajayakumar further pointed out that both the trademarks ‘Jio’ and ‘Hotstar’ were registered before the domain acquisition. “The timing of the merger is not relevant,” he added, as Jio or Hotstar can support a successful domain dispute complaint.

Harsh also noted that the time of registration may not serve as a valid defense if the plaintiff can allege certain grounds in its cybersquatting claim, such as:

-The domain name must be identical or similar to a trademark owned by the plaintiff.

-The registrant must have no rights or legitimate interests in the domain.

-The domain must be registered and used in bad faith.

What remedies exist against cybersquatting?

Unlike the US, which has the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, India lacks specific laws addressing cybersquatting. Harsh, however, emphasized that domain names are considered trademarks under the Indian Trademark Act, 1999. “Anyone using an identical or similar domain name can be held 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 evidenced by Yahoo! Inc. v. Akash Arora & Anr., where the Delhi High Court ruled that Arora’s use of “YahooIndia” was likely to confuse users and infringe Yahoo’s trademark.

The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) has also tackled cybersquatting worldwide. In 1999, it adopted the Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy (UDRP), which provided an arbitration process for resolving domain disputes in lieu of litigation.

Ajayakumar opined that the UDRP is often more beneficial for resolving domain disputes as it provides a streamlined, faster and cost-effective process compared to traditional litigation. Unlike legal proceedings, which can be lengthy and expensive, the UDRP focuses exclusively on domain name and trademark issues. “The entire process can be completed within a few months,” he added.

Discussing the UDRP, Harsh noted that while it has expedited 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 to the prevailing party.”

In 2009, journalist Barkha Dutt had filed a complaint under the UDRP seeking transfer of the domain www.barkahdutt.com, which was registered by Hyderabad-based cybersquatter Easyticket. The complainant successfully demonstrated all the required grounds during the administrative procedure, which led to the panel ordering the transfer of the disputed domain name to her.

As the story continues to unfold, Reliance still has cards to play. Under the UDRP, they could request the transfer or cancellation of the domain. But for now, what started as an ambitious developer initiative has transformed into a platform for children’s philanthropy, although it remains to be seen how long this transformation will last.