A story about two philanthropic children and a developer’s dream

In the bustling digital market for domain names, where virtual real estate can be worth millions, an unlikely story unfolded last weekend, involving the ambitious gamble of a young Delhi developer, two philanthropic kids from Dubai and one of the most powerful corporations in India.

The saga begins with a dream and a domain name: JioHotstar.com. When whispers of a potential merger between streaming giants JioCinema and Hotstar began to circulate through India’s tech corridors, an ingenious app developer from Delhi saw an opportunity. Armed with entrepreneurial spirit and the hope of funding their 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 that things might fall into place. My intention to buy this domain was simple: if this merger happens, I might fulfill my dream of studying at Cambridge,” the message on JioHotstar. Read the .com landing page.

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

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

Then the saga took an unexpected turn. Realizing that the battle was not sustainable, the developer ended up selling the domain to Dubai-based siblings Jainam, 13, and Jivika Jain, 10.

The brothers repurposed the site to document their philanthropic journey, saying they bought it to support the developer’s goals and promote “kindness and positivity.”

During their summer vacations in India, Jainam and Jivika undertook a 50-day ‘Seva journey’, connecting with children from diverse backgrounds and inspiring them to dream big. They mentioned that donations received during their travels helped them buy the JioHotstar.com domain to “support a young software developer from Delhi”.

“We wanted to support a young software developer from Delhi,” the brothers said, explaining the acquisition of the controversial domain. They say their intention is to turn what started as a corporate chess piece into a platform to document their philanthropic ventures.

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

So does this mean the domain name battle is over for Reliance? Maybe not.

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

“Furthermore, influencers could also be liable under Indian trademark laws as both ‘Jio’ and ‘Hotstar’ are registered trademarks in India,” she added. It is important to note that they could face claims under Indian trademark law only 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 to India.

While the quick actions of the Delhi-based developer won praise on social media, legal experts labeled it as a clear case of cyber occupation.

Is cybersquatting legal?

So what is cybersquatting? Cybersquatting involves registering, using or selling a domain name to profit from someone else’s trademark. It is considered an unethical and illegal practice. Intellectual property lawyer Akshay Ajayakumar explained to BOOM that cyber squatters usually register domains similar to well-known trademarks or the names of high-profile individuals, intending to sell them back at inflated prices.

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

Ajayakumar noted that the JioHotstar.com case fits this pattern, as a third party registered the domain without rights, hoping to sell it for a higher value. “It doesn’t matter what the money is going to be used for,” he stressed, noting that the intent to profit defines cybersquatting.

As Harsh explained, cybersquatting comes in various forms, including squat typo (using misspelled domains to mislead users), identity theft (copying a brand’s website), name jacking (celebrity impersonation) and reverse cybersquatting (falsely claiming a trademark).

“The Jio-Hotstar case aligns with identity theft for financial gain,” she said.

Cybersquatting is similar to domain flipping, a legal practice in which individuals buy domains with potential market appeal, increase their value and sell them without targeting specific trademarks. Pointing out the difference, Ajayakumar said, “Cybersquatting involves registering domains that imitate trademarks or names with the intention of profiting by selling them to the rightful owners.”

Does the timing of domain registration matter?

Attorney Ajayakumar pointed out that “time is of the essence in deciding these cases” because, in the case of legitimate domain reversals, registrants are often unaware of existing trademarks, which indicates good faith. However, in this case, “registrant’s bad faith was evident when it registered third-party trademarks.”

Referring to the Telstra v. Nuclear Marshmallows case, he explained that the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) ruled that simply holding a domain without use can constitute bad faith if there is no legitimate reason for registration, especially when when the domain resembles a well-known brand. “In this case, the registrant’s intention to sell the domain makes it a blatant example of bad faith,” he said.

In 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 similar to its trademark and was registered in bad faith .

Ajayakumar also pointed out that both “Jio” and “Hotstar” trademarks were registered before the domain was acquired. “The timing of the merger is irrelevant,” he added, as either Jio or Hotstar can mount a successful dispute complaint.

Harsh also noted that timing of registration may not serve as a valid defense if the plaintiff can establish certain grounds in his cyber-employment claim, such as:

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

– The registrant must not have rights or legitimate interests in the domain.

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

What legal remedies are there for cybersquatting?

Unlike the US, which has the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, India has no specific laws to address cybersquatting. However, Harsh pointed out that domain names are considered trademarks under the Indian Trademarks Act, 1999. “Anyone using an identical or similar domain name can be held liable for trademark infringement under section 29 of law,” she said.

Under the Trademark Act, Indian courts have ruled in favor of trademark owners, as seen in Yahoo! Inc. v. Akash Arora & Anr., where the Delhi High Court found 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 addressed cyber occupation globally. In 1999, it adopted the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP), providing an arbitration process for resolving domain name disputes instead of litigation.

Ajayakumar opined that the UDRP is often more beneficial to the resolution of domain disputes, providing a streamlined, faster and cost-effective process compared to traditional litigation. Unlike court proceedings, which can be lengthy and expensive, the UDRP focuses only on domain name and trademark issues. “The whole process can be completed in a few months,” he added.

Discussing the UDRP, Harsh noted that while it expedited the resolution of domain name disputes, “available remedies are limited to cancellation or transfer of the disputed domain name and do not include monetary compensation for the prevailing party.”

In 2009, journalist Barkha Dutt filed a complaint under the UDRP seeking transfer of the domain www.barkahdutt.com, which had been registered by Hyderabad-based cybersquatter Easyticket. The plaintiff successfully demonstrated all the necessary reasons during the administrative proceedings, which led to the decision of the panel of judges to transfer the disputed domain name to her.

As the story continues to unfold, Reliance still holds 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 gambit has morphed into a platform for childhood philanthropy — though how long that transformation will last remains to be seen.