|
''Satyam Infoway Ltd. v. Sifynet Solutions Pvt. Ltd.'' was the first case to be decided by the Supreme Court of India on the issue of domain name protection, and dealt with two businesses employing variations on the same mark ("Sify" ) in their respective domain names. In the case, the Supreme Court pronounced that the Indian Trade Marks Act, 1999 is applicable to the regulation of domain names. The decision in favour of Satyam Infoway was premised on the court's observation that domain names may have all the features of trademarks. The court considered the confusion that may result in the market due to the use of identical or similar domain names. In such a situation, instead of being directed to the website of the legitimate owner of the name, a user could be diverted to the website of an unauthorized user of a similar or identical name. Upon arrival at the unauthorized site, customers might not find the goods or services customarily associated with the mark, and might be led to believe that the legitimate owner was misrepresenting its wares. This could result in the domain name's owner suffering a loss of market share and goodwill.〔 〕 ==Facts== The appellant in the Supreme Court action, Satyam Infoway Ltd., alleged that the respondent, Sifynet Solutions Pvt. Ltd., had intentionally registered and operated a domain name that was confusingly similar to one owned by Satyam Infoway. Satyam Infoway claimed that it had in 1999, registered several domain names pertaining to its business: sifynet.com, sifymall.com, sifyrealestate.com, with the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) and the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). It submitted that the word "Sify" – which was an amalgam of elements of its corporate name "Satyam Infoway" – was a "fanciful" term, and that it had further garnered substantial goodwill in the market. Meanwhile, Sifynet Solutions had started using the word "Siffy" as part of the domain names under which it carried on internet marketing (namely siffynet.com and siffynet.net), claiming to have registered them with ICANN in 2001.〔 〕 Satyam Infoway alleged that Sifynet Solutions was attempting to pass off its services as those belonging to Satyam Infoway by using a deceptively similar word as part of its domain name. Satyam Infoway claimed that this would cause confusion in the minds of the relevant consumers, who would mistake the services of Sifynet Solutions as belonging to Satyam Infoway.〔 Sifynet Solutions contended that unlike a trade mark, the registration of a domain name did not confer an intellectual property right in the name. It averred that a domain name is merely an address on the computer, which allows communications from the consumers to reach the owner of the business, and confers no comparable property rights in the same.〔 Because of a lacuna in the intellectual property laws of India, there was no law which specifically addressed disputes relating to domain names. Therefore, members of the Internet community asked the courts to apply trade mark law as an effective avenue of redress for their disputes. The High Court responded and held that domain names could be adequately protected under the doctrine of passing off referred to in the Indian law of trade marks. This doctrine was applied to resolve domain name disputes in ''Rediff Communication Ltd. v. Cyberbooth & Anr.'' (AIR 2000 Bombay 27), ''Yahoo Inc. v. Akash Arora'' (PTC (19) 201 ), ''Acqua Minerals Ltd. v. Pramod Borse & Anr.'' (PTC 619 (Del) ), ''Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Ltd. v. Manu Kosuri'' (PTC 859 (Del) ). The Supreme Court in ''Satyam Infoway Ltd. v. Sifynet Solutions Pvt. Ltd.,'' affirmed the law laid down by these various High Courts, and established a modicum of certainty with regard to the law in this contentious sphere.〔 〕 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Satyam Infoway Ltd. v. Sifynet Solutions Pvt. Ltd.」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|