Topics Covered in this article
- Trademarks Act (47 of 1999), S.2(zb)— Trademark – Website – Domain name – Used as a mode of carrying on commercial operation – Has the features of a trademark – It is not just an internet address – It acts as a market identification – Identifies and distinguishes products or services rendered accessible to internet consumers – Passing of action may be focused on it.
Satyam Infoway Ltd. v. Sifynet Solutions Pvt. Ltd., the first case decided by the Supreme Court of India about domain security, and it involved two companies using variants of the same symbol (“Sify”) in their domain names.
The Supreme Court ruled that the Indian Trademarks Act, 1999, applies to the enforcement of domain names in this case. The court’s decision in Satyam Infoway’s favour was based on the court’s finding that domain names may have all the characteristics of trademarks. The court considered the potential for consumer uncertainty caused using identical or equivalent domain names. Instead of being routed to the rightful owner of the name’s website, a user could be directed to the website of an illegitimate user with a similar or equivalent name. Customers may not notice the products or services normally associated with the label at the illegal venue, leading them to suspect that the rightful owner is misrepresenting the merchandise. The domain name’s owner could lose market share and goodwill because of this.
Satyam Infoway Ltd, a leading IT service company, incorporated in 1995 for doing business of software development, software solution and connected activities, registered several domain names like ‘www.sifynet’, ‘www.sifymall.com’, ‘www.sifyrealestate.com’ in June 1999 ICANN and WIPO by coining the word ‘Sify’ by using elements of its corporate name Satyam Infoway and therefore claimed wide reputation and goodwill in the name.
SIFY- Siffynet Solutions Pvt Ltd began doing business of network marketing in 2001 under the domain names, ‘www.siffynet.net’ and ‘www.siffynet.com’, having also registered its domain names ICANN.
Satyam Infoway Ltd., the plaintiff in the Supreme Court case, said that the respondent, Sifynet Solutions Pvt. Ltd., had registered and ran a domain name that was confusingly like Satyam Infoway’s. Satyam Infoway said that in 1999, it registered many domain names related to its industry with the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) and the World Intellectual Property Organization: sifynet.com, sifymall.com, and sifyrealestate.com (WIPO). It said that the term “Sify” – which was created by combining elements of its corporate name “Satyam Infoway” – was a “fanciful” term with significant market recognition. Meanwhile, Sifynet Solutions began using the term “Siffy” in its domain names (siffynet.com and siffynet.net), claiming to have licensed them with ICANN in 2001.
Satyam Infoway said that Sifynet Solutions was attempting to pass its services off as Satyam Infoway’s by using a confusingly related term in its domain name. Satyam Infoway argued that this would create misunderstanding among related customers, who would confuse Sifynet Solutions’ services for those of Satyam Infoway.
Sifynet Solutions argued that, unlike a trademark, registering a domain name would not give the owner of the name an intellectual property interest in the name. It asserted that a domain name is simply a computer address that enables customers to communicate with the business’s owner, and that it confers no equivalent property rights in the same.
The fact that there was no legislation to handle domain name conflicts was a gap in India’s intellectual property laws. As a result, members of the Internet community have urged the courts to use trademark legislation as a viable means of resolving their disputes. The High Court replied by ruling that domain names should be properly covered under the Indian rule of trademarks’ doctrine of handing off. In Rediff Communication Ltd. v. Cyberbooth & Anr. (AIR 2000 Bombay 27), Yahoo Inc. v. Akash OP Aurora [1999 PTC (19) 201], Acqua Minerals Ltd. v. Pramod Borse & Anr. [2001 PTC 619 (Del)], and Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories Ltd. v. Manu Kosuri [2001 PTC 859 (Del)], this doctrine was extended to address In Satyam Infoway Ltd. v. Sifynet Solutions Pvt. Ltd., the Supreme Court upheld the law formed by these different High Courts, bringing a semblance of clarity to the law in this contentious area.
Filing of Case
Respondent was handing off appellant’s company activities and services by using the term “Sify,” which was appellant’s business and services domain name, causing doubt in the minds of relevant customers and harming the credibility of Appellant’s firm, according to the complaint. An appeal for a provisional injunction was also brought by the appellant.
- Is it possible for a domain name to be a term capable of distinguishing the trade/service provided to internet users?
- Is it true that internet domain names are subject to the same legal standards and rules that apply to intellectual property, such as trademarks?
- Do trademark law principles, including those relating to passing off, apply?
The biggest issue in this appeal is whether internet domain names are entitled to the same legal standards that apply to other intellectual resources like trademarks. The appellant, which was established in 1995, registered many domain names, such as www.sifynet, www.sifymall.com, and www.sifyrealestate.com, with globally recognized Registrars, such as the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) and the World Intellectual Property Organization, in June 1999. The claimant appears to have invented the term “Sify” by combining elements of its corporate name, Satyam Infoway. The claimant argues that the word “Sify” has a widespread prestige and gratitude.
District Court of Bangalore: Satyam Infoway filed a lawsuit in Bangalore’s City Civil Court, seeking a provisional restraining order against Sifynet Solutions. The court ruled in Satyam Infoway’s favour and issued a provisional injunction. It said that Satyam Infoway was the first to use the term “Sify,” and that it had gained a lot of traction for selling internet and computer services under the same name. It was also discovered that Sifynet Solutions’ domain name was confusingly like Satyam Infoway’s, and that this would lead to general misunderstanding about the origins of the services.
Karnataka High Court: According to the High Court’s decision, just because the Appellant began their commercial operations first, no order can be granted in their favour without recognizing the balance of convenience.
- The High Court went on to say that the Appellant and Respondent are engaged in two separate types of businesses.
- The respondent had already spent a significant sum of money in the establishment of the company and had recruited over 50,000 members, according to the court.
- If the injunction is issued, the petitioner may face greater suffering and inconvenience, as well as irreparable damage.
The High Court also noted that denying Satyam Infoway’s request for an injunction would bring no inconvenience to the appellant. The City Civil Court’s decision was overturned by the High Court.
Looking at the judgments of both courts, it appears that both made decisions based on the premise that the rules governing handing off acts in accordance with trademarks apply to domain names. However, the respondent in the latter case believes that a domain name cannot be confused with ‘Property names,’ such as a trademark. A domain name, according to the respondent, is nothing more than an Internet address. The respondent also claimed that registering with ICANN would not grant any Intellectual Property Rights.
“Trademark means a label capable of being depicted graphically and capable of separating the products or services of one individual from those of another, and can include the form of goods, their wrapping, and combinations of colours,” says Section 2 (1) (zb) of the Trademark Act 1999.
A trademark is an emblem, image, pattern, word, image, or other symbol that separates one product from another of the same kind.
A “mark” is specified as “a unit, brand, heading, sticker, ticket, name, signature, term, text, numeral, form of products, packaging, or combination of colours or any combination thereof” in Section 2(m), and a “name” includes any abbreviation of a name .
Section 2(j) defines “goods” as “anything” that is the subject of trade or produce, whereas Section 2(k) defines “services” as “anything” that is the subject of trade or manufacture (z).
The appropriate concern emerges after analyzing the concepts.
Is it possible for a domain name to be a term capable of distinguishing the trade/service provided to internet users? (One of the questions was filed before the Supreme Court, and the appeal was then filed in the Supreme Court after it was dismissed by the High Court.) The Appellant filed a special leave petition in the Supreme Court on this issue.
Supreme Court of India: The Supreme Court, in an opinion written by Justices Ruma Pal and P. Venkatarama Reddi, overturned the High Court’s decision and ruled in favour of Satyam Infoway. It announced that domain names are governed by the same rules that apply to trademarks (i.e., the Trademarks Act, 1999). The court claimed that, while there is no legislation in India that specifically regulates the domain name regime, this does not exclude domain names from being protected under the Trademarks Act. As a result, the court ruled that domain names are covered by the Trademarks Act’s passing off provisions.
The Supreme Court compared domain names to trademarks to reach the Holding. The court declared that a domain name has grown from a simple business address to a business identifier in the modern period after elaborating sections 2(zb), 2(m), and 2(z). As a result, a domain name is more than just a way to get across the internet; it is a tool for distinguishing and identifying a company’s products or services while also having a clear internet address. This characteristic of domain names in the digital world enables them to be compared to trademarks and, as a result, to be covered under the Trademarks Act.
In response to Issue 1 supreme court stated: The first and most important use of a domain name was to have an address for computers on the internet, but the internet has evolved over time, and it is now used for more than just email. Because of the rise in commercial operations on the internet, a domain name is also sometimes used as a business’s identity. This means that domain names are now called utilities under section 2(z), and the domain name has become an exclusive identity. As time goes by, more and more things (commercial) promote or sell on the internet, increasing the value of the domain name. A domain name is useful not only for users, but also for distinguishing between the two types of market operations. The domain name also specifies the same internet site, according to the Supreme Court. Furthermore, several times when people are looking for a website, they infer the domain name of that website; this fact has enchanted the value of domain names.
In response to issue 2 & 3 Supreme Court stated: If one person uses the same domain name as another, it can cause confusion among consumers, as one customer can mistake one similar name with another that offers different services. This can result in market misrepresentation, resulting in customer loss.
The Supreme Court has noted that using identical domain names has all the same components as passing off, such as protecting the business’s goodwill and credibility, safeguarding the public by not causing doubt in people’s minds, defendant’s misrepresentation, and finally, defeat. Based on these considerations, the Supreme Court determined that a domain name has the same features as a trademark and hence should be used to bring a Passing off suit.
The decision of the honorable Apex Court is very balanced and completely based on the facts which clearly shows why the judgement went in favour of Satyam Infoway.
Grounds on which court rule follows:
- Satyam Infoway has a lot of goodwill in the industry because of the brand “Sify,” which has 5 lakh subscribers, 840 cyber cafes, and was the first Indian company to be published on NASDAQ, as well as the company’s extensive coverage in leading national newspapers, high sales numbers, and so on.
- There is a fine distinction between ‘Sify’ and ‘Siffy,’ which causes doubt in people’s minds. The respondent had no proper excuse for using the term “siffy.”
Rejected justification given by Respondent as follows:
- The use of the same domain name by Sifynet was supported by the fact that the registration of a domain name did not confer any intellectual property rights in the name. They went on to say that a domain name is nothing more than a computer’s address and that it is not private property.
- Appellant had previously used and adopted the domain name.
Since the legislation often lags technologies, the current body of law is found to be insufficient. Solution must be pieced together from several means, avoiding the common approach of relying solely on laws that are ‘commands of the king’ in the positivist sense. In this ruling, the Indian Supreme Court applies to international organizations such as the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and private entities such as the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), which are engaged in the formulation of technology legislation. The court also combines a solely private dispute settlement policy (the UDRP) with national legislation in a somewhat bold shift that appears to fill a legal vacuum. In doing so, the Supreme Court of India exemplifies a new judgement in an integrated environment, solidifying India’s place in the international judicial network.