You are here: Home / Archives for Judgement/Court Decisions

Judgement/Court Decisions

New York private investigator gets jail term for hacking into emails

By Leave a Comment

A New York private investigator who hacked the e-mails of dozens of people he was investigating got jail time — but a judge stopped short of helping to expose the clients that hired him to do their dirty work.

Manhattan federal judge Richard Sullivan sentenced Eric Saldarriaga to three months in jail for pilfering some 60 e-mail accounts, saying he hoped to send a message about the seriousness of cybercrime.

more @ http://nypost.com/2015/06/26/private-investigator-gets-3-months-for-hacking-but-wont-expose-clients/

Delhi High Court orders for blocking of 219 websites infringing SONY’s FIFA rights

By Leave a Comment

Multi Screen Media Private Limited (formerly SONY) approached Delhi High Court in the month of June 2014 restraining file sharing website from infringing their FIFA rights. SONY submitted that they have exclusive Broadcasting rights for India and neighboring countries (that includes Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan and Srilanka) and the FIFA world cup matches are being shown LIVE on six channels but their rights are infringed over the Internet as the Videos are being freely shared over file sharing websites including uploadable.ch, divxstage.eu, torrenthound.com, nowvideo.sx, limetorrents.com, torrentfunk.com, torrents.net, thepiratebay.org, torlock.com, movshare.net, thetorrent.org, and son on. Initially, SONY submitted a list of 472 websites, which was later on revised to 219 websites as poer 01 July order.

Medianama.com very rightly reports as follows as to original list of 472 websites:

“Before passing such an order, we wonder if any one actually checked the websites ?

– The fact that URL shorteners and Google Docs are in the list is unexplainable.
– While checking the sites at random, we also noticed that nubestream.com was shut down earlier, due to a change in Spanish laws (as per a notice on its website). How new is this list?
– Some of the sites (perhaps some of the telugu content sites) might be violating copyright but they don’t specifically violate MSM’s copyright.
– What about protection under the IT Rules? Upload and file storage sites are intermediaries, and should not be held responsible for the content that their users upload.

So, is this a list of actual sites that infringe MSN’s copyright or is it a random list of file-sharing sites compiled by them? Of course, this is not to suggest that there weren’t actual football live streaming sites in the list, but this collateral damage is hard to justify.”

This is very true, how you can justify blocking of website like Google Docs. Which now though have been removed from the list. And so the question has been perfectly asked above: How new was the original list ???

The revised list of website blocked as per Delhi High Court order originally is as follows:

List of Websites (compiled by Markscan on behalf of MSM)

uploadable.ch
divxstage.eu
torrenthound.com
nowvideo.sx
limetorrents.com
novamov.com
torrentfunk.com
torrents.net
thepiratebay.org
torlock.com
movshare.net
thetorrent.org
nowdownload.ch
sockshare.com
torrage.com
sumotorrent.sx
ryushare.com
1337x.to
filesbomb.in
seedpeer.me
ukcast.tv
ezcast.tv
xuscacamusca.se
filesfrog.net
glotorrents.com
stadium-live.com
tvembed.com
u-peak.me
crichd.in
zonasports.to
softsportstv.eu
sports-x.net
sportz-hd.eu
totbed.edu
tvembed.eu
tv-porinternet.com
vipbox.co
vtv4u.eu
whoopwhoop.tv
cdn.playwire.com
embedupload.com
1fichier.com
crocko.com
uppit.com
solidfiles.com
bayfiles.com
tusfiles.net
bitshare.com
mega.co.nz
share-online.biz
ul.to
mightyupload.com
uploaded.net
freakshare.com
safelinking.net
terafile.co
fileom.com
d01.megasgares.com
dizzcloud.com
fileparadox.in
k2s.cc
sharerpo.com
fcore.eu
mega-vids.com
4upfiles.com
luckyshare.net
cloudyvideos.com
movzap.com
vertor.eu
nosvideo.net
vidxden.com
vidspot.net
freshvideo.net
vidbux.com
vidplay.net
vidup.me
video.tt
modovideo.com
youwatch.org
videoweed.es
torrentz.sx
thepiratebay.se.unblock.to
uptobox.com
torrentdownload.ws
btmon.com
thepiratebay.se
bthunter.org
1337x.org
swankshare.com
torrentz.dj
torrentz.am
torcache.kickassunblock.net
ontohinbd.com
barcelonastream.com
hdembed.com
s247.tv
sambasoccer.pw
skysports.tv
megafiles.se
exashare.com
primeshare.tv
uploadc.com
epicshare.net
thefile.me
nosupload.com
uploadsat.com
shareflare.net
letitbit.net
unlimitzone.com
uploadrocket.net
secureupload.eu
hulkfile.eu
filehoot.com
usefile.com
hitfile.net
jheberg.net
dl.free.fr
sharebeast.com
vshare.eu
megafilesfactory.com
videobam.com
sharexvid.com
vidzi.tv
streamin.to
thevideo.me
vidzbeez.com
divxstream.net
videowood.tv
hostingbulk.com
slickvid.com
videomega.tv
torrentz.to
dev.torrentz.pro
piraattilahti.org
torrentz.asia
kickasstorrents.com.in
desistreams.tv
streamhd.eu
filestube.to
kickassunblock.net
0dian8.com
114nba.com
360bo.com
51live.com
antibookers.ru
atdhe.eu
atdhe.so
atdhe.xxx
atdhe24.net
azhibo.com
coolsport.tv
tvole.com
drakulastream.eu
esportesaovivo.com
feed2all.eu
gooool.org
hahasport.com
neolive.net
kanqiu.tv
livesport4u.com
livetv.sx
meczelive.tv
megatvonline.co (redirect to vertvaovivo.biz)
epctv.com
fancylive.com
feed2all.eu
firstrows.biz
firstrowsports.ge
footballhd.ru
freefootball.ws
freelivefussball.de
freelivesport.eu
futbolarg.tv
footballsinlimites.pw
goatd.net
funkeysports.com
hdstreams.tv
iraqgoals.in
lesoleildelanuit.wf
life-sport.org
max-deportv.com
megaviptv.net
milloxtv.me
nowwatchtvlive.com
online–soccer.eu
premier-league-live.net
real-tv-sport.com
soccertoall.net
katshore.org
p2p-hd.com
qmzhibo.com
rojadirecta.me
sport5online.com
sportiemon.ge
sportlemontv.eu
sportp2p.com
feed4u.net
tvonlinexat.com
usagoals.tv
vipbox.net
vipboxuk.co
24livestreamtv.com
atdhe.ge
atdhe.sx
atdhe.ws
bongdatructuyen.info
bongdatructuyen.vn
bongdatv.net
bongdaup.com
majika.biz
btvsports.com
capodeportes.net
catedralhd.tk
desportogratis.com
dinozap.com
streamking.org
tructiepbongda.com
tv-link.in
vipracing.co.in

Delhi High Court orders in the matter:

-> 23 June 2014
-> 01 July 2014

Mumbai High Court passes first John Doe order against piracy

By Leave a Comment

Mumbai High Court passes an John Doe order against the piracy of Viacom 18 Motion Pictures film Gangs of Wasseypur releasing June 21, 2012. This is first of the kind order by Mumbai High Court, as previously such matters have been taken up by Delhi High Court only, on numerous occasions. Such an order will permit ISPs to block file sharing sites.

More Details at LegallyIndia.com

The term ‘John Doe Injunction’ (or John Doe Order) is used in the UK to describe an injunction sought against someone whose identity is not known at the time it is issued. If an unknown person has possession of the confidential personal information and is threatening to disclose it, a ‘John Doe’ injunction may be sought against that person. www.wikipedia.org

Delhi High Court stays Rs 11 lakh fine imposed on Yahoo India

By Leave a Comment

The Delhi High Court Wednesday stayed the Controller of Certifying Authorities (CCA) order asking Yahoo India to pay Rs 11 lakh as penalty for its failure to provide email information of a person in national interest. Justice Rajiv Sahai Endlaw also directed Yahoo India to furnish the requisite information within a week and fixed the matter for November 8.

The court was hearing a petition filed by Yahoo India, which came in appeal before the high court challenging the CCA direction to pay Rs 11 lakh fine. The government had sought some information, on the grounds of national security, from CCA about some individuals including their email identities. The CCA asked Yahoo India to furnish the details.

“However, Yahoo India failed to provide the information for which it was fined by the CCA under Section 28 of the Information Technology (IT) Act. The authority also issued warning to Yahoo India,” said CCA.

CCA is not authorised to impose fine or penalty, said Yahoo India in its petition.

Appearing for Yahoo India, former solicitor general Gopal Subramanium said the firm had complied with the provision of Section 69 of the IT Act and had provided the information. “CCA is not authorised to impose fine or penalty,” said Yahoo India in its petition.

source: IBN Live

Viewing Porn – not a crime, rules Mumbai High Court

By 2 Comments

Justice Vijaya Kapse-Tahilramani of the Bombay high court on Wednesday quashed obscenity charges against top customs officers who were arrested following a police raid at a bungalow in Lonavla in 2008. Merely viewing an “obscene” film in the privacy of a house is not obscenity as defined under Indian criminal law, the court ruled.

The customs officers were raided while allegedly watching a pornographic film on a laptop and dancing with bar girls, the police had claimed.

“Simply viewing an obscene object is not an offence,” Justice Tahilramani said. “It becomes an offence only when someone has in possession such objects for the purpose of sale, hire, distribution, public exhibition or putting it into circulation. If the obscene object is kept in a house for private viewing, the accused cannot be charged (for obscenity).”

The court held that the private viewing of an obscene film on a laptop in a bungalow was not tantamount to public exhibition.

Read more: Merely viewing porn not a crime, rules HC – The Times of India http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mumbai/Merely-viewing-porn-not-a-crime-rules-HC/articleshow/6985342.cms#ixzz16Jhshq00

Relevant Provisions as to obscenity are contained under the Information Technology Act, 2008 as follows:

Sec 67: Punishment for publishing or transmitting obscene material in electronic form

Whoever publishes or transmits or causes to be published in the electronic form, any material which is lascivious or appeals to the prurient interest or if  its effect is such as to tend to deprave and corrupt persons who are likely, having regard to all relevant circumstances, to read, see or hear the matter contained or embodied in it, shall be punished on first conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to   three years and with fine which may extend to five lakh rupees and in the event of a second or subsequent conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years and also with fine which may extend to ten lakh rupees.

P2P limewire music service shut down by US court

By Leave a Comment

Manhattan Federal Court granted the music industy request to shut down the Limewire sharing service, which was liable for copyright infrngement, as it allowed sharing of music, movies, TV shows, etc for free over the Internet. Ofcourse, this is not something new as violating softwares have always been on target of famous music labels in US and Europe.

Saying that LimeWire’s parent Lime Wire LLC intentionally caused a “massive scale of infringement” involving thousands of works, Wood issued a permanent injunction that requires the company to disable its “searching, downloading, uploading, file trading and/or file distribution functionality.”

Record companies “have suffered — and will continue to suffer — irreparable harm from Lime Wire’s inducement of widespread infringement of their works,” Wood wrote.

She called the potential damages “staggering,” and probably “well beyond” the New York-based company’s ability to pay.

The signed ruling was made available by The Recording Industry Association of America, which represents music companies. It has said Lime Wire has cost its members hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue. A copy of the ruling was not immediately available on the public court docket.

In a statement, Lime Wire expressed disappointment at the ruling. “While this is not our ideal path, we’re working with the music industry to move forward,” it said.

Lime Wire said the injunction lets it continue testing a service that allows users to buy music from independent labels. The company said it hopes to negotiate agreements with the entire music industry ahead of a full launch.

Read More: http://in.reuters.com/article/idINIndia-52466820101026

Indian National Sentenced to 81 Months in US Prison for Role in International Online Brokerage Hacking Crime

By Leave a Comment

An Indian national was sentenced today to 81 months in prison on conspiracy and aggravated identity theft charges arising from an international fraud scheme to “hack” into online brokerage accounts in the United States and use those accounts to manipulate stock prices, announced Assistant Attorney General Lanny A. Breuer of the Criminal Division and U.S. Attorney Deborah Gilg of the District of Nebraska.

Jaisankar Marimuthu, 36, a native of Chennai, India, was also ordered to pay $2.4 million in restitution. Marimuthu pleaded guilty on Feb. 5, 2010, to one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud, securities fraud, computer fraud and aggravated identity theft, and to one count of aggravated identity theft before U.S. District Magistrate Judge F.A. Gossett III in Omaha, Neb. Marimuthu, who was extradited to the United States following his arrest in Hong Kong, was sentenced today before U.S. District Judge Laurie Smith Camp.

According to court documents, Marimuthu was part of a conspiracy that operated out of Thailand and India from February 2006 through December 2006 in which the prices of thinly-traded securities were fraudulently inflated by hacking into brokerage accounts in the United States and then illegally using the accounts to make large, unauthorized purchases of securities in the name of the unsuspecting customers. Marimuthu admitted that after the price of the securities had been artificially increased or “pumped up” through the bogus trading, the conspirators’ own holdings of the securities would be sold at a profit. More than 90 customers and seven brokerage firms in the United States have been identified as victims. Financial losses of close to $2.5 million were sustained by the victims in this case.

more @ http://cyberlaws.us/indian-national-sentenced-to-81-months-in-prison-for-role-in-international-online-brokerage-“hack-pump-and-dump”-scheme/

US Court fixes location of Domain Name based upon its registry address

By Leave a Comment

United State Court Of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Office Depot v. Zuccarini

In December 2000, Office Depot obtained a judgment against Zuccarini under the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act of 1999 (“ACPA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d), rising out of Zuccarini’s registration of the domain name “officdepot.com.” Office Depot was unable to collect on the judgment and eventually assigned the judgment to DSH.

DSH sought to levy upon some of the other domain names owned by Zuccarini. DSH registered the judgment in the district court for the Northern District of California. DSH then obtained a preservation order from the district court and engaged in discovery. It learned that Zuccarini owned more than 248 domain names registered with VeriSign, of which more than 190 were “.com” domain names. DSH targeted the “.com” domain names in its levy.

Some background information on the structure of the domain name system will be helpful to the reader:

Every computer connected to the Internet has a unique Internet Protocol (“IP”) address. IP addresses are long strings of numbers, such as 64.233.161.147. The Internet [domain name system] provides an alphanumeric shorthand for IP addresses. The hierarchy of each domain name is divided by periods.

Thus, reading a domain name from right to left, the portion of the domain name to the right of the first period is the top-level domain (“TLD”). TLDs include .com, .gov, .net., and .biz. Each TLD is divided into second-level domains identified by the designation to the left of the first period, such as “example” in “example.com” or “example.net.” . . . Each domain name is unique and thus can only be registered to one entity . . . . A domain name is created when it is registered with the appropriate registry operator. A registry OFFICE DEPOT v. ZUCCARINI 3123 operator maintains the definitive database, or registry, that associates the registered domain names with the proper IP numbers for the respective domain name servers. The domain name servers direct Internet queries to the related web resources. A registrant can register a domain name only through companies that serve as registrars for second level domain names. Registrars accept registrations for new or expiring domain names, connect to the appropriate registry operator’s TLD servers to determine whether the name is available, and register available domain names on behalf of registrants . . . .

The majority of domain name registrations for commercial purposes utilize the .com TLD. Coalition for ICANN Transparency, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 464 F. Supp. 2d 948, 951-53 (N.D. Cal. 2006), reversed by 567 F.3d 1084 (9th Cir. 2009).

As explained in Coalition for ICANN Transparency, there are three primary actors in the domain name system.

First, companies called “registries” operate a database (or “registry”) for all domain names within the scope of their authority.

Second, companies called “registrars” register domain names with registries on behalf of those who own the names. Registrars maintain an ownership record for each domain name they have registered with a registry. Action by a registrar is needed to transfer ownership of a domain name from one registrant to another.

Third, individuals and companies called “registrants” own the domain names. Registrants interact with the registrars, who in turn interact with the registries.

VeriSign is the registry for the domain names “.com” and “.net”. Id. at 953. Its headquarters are located in Mountain View, California, in the Northern District of California. During discovery, DSH learned that the registrars for Zuccarini’s “.com” and “.net” domain names were located in the United States, Germany, and Israel. DSH filed a request in the district court for a turnover order to compel the registrars of certain “.com” domain names owned by Zuccarini to transfer ownership to DSH. The district court denied the request, holding that, under California Civil Procedure Code § 699.040, it could not order third parties to turn over property. DSH then moved for the appointment of a receiver who would obtain and sell the “.com” domain names in question and would use the proceeds to satisfy the judgment. The district court granted the motion to appoint a receiver.

Zuccarini appealed. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(2) to entertain an appeal from an interlocutory order appointing a receiver.

Because VeriSign has its headquarters in the Northern District of California, the district court had quasi in rem jurisdiction over the domain names registered with VeriSign for purposes of appointing a receiver to assist in executing a judgment against the owner of the names.

Read More at: http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2010/02/26/07-16788.pdf

In Indian context, .IN domain Registry is located at New Delh :-

.IN Registry
c/o NIXI (National Internet eXchange of India)
Regd. Office: Incube Business Centre,5th Floor,
18,Nehru Place
New Delhi 110019
India
Tel: +91 11 3061 4624 / 4625
Fax: +91 11 3061 4629
E-Mail: registry@nixi.in

In December 2000, Office Depot obtained a judgment against Zuccarini under the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act of 1999 (“ACPA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d), rising out of Zuccarini’s registration of the domain name “officdepot.com.” Office Depot was unable to collect on the judgment and eventually assigned the judgment to DSH.DSH sought to levy upon some of the other domain names owned by Zuccarini. DSH registered the judgment in the district court for the Northern District of California. DSH then
obtained a preservation order from the district court and engaged in discovery. It learned that Zuccarini owned more than 248 domain names registered with VeriSign, of which more than 190 were “.com” domain names. DSH targeted the “.com” domain names in its levy.

Some background information on the structure of the domain name system will be helpful to the reader:

Every computer connected to the Internet has a unique Internet Protocol (“IP”) address. IP addresses are long strings of numbers, such as 64.233.161.147. The Internet [domain name system] provides an alphanumeric shorthand for IP addresses. The hierarchy
of each domain name is divided by periods.

Thus, reading a domain name from right to left, the portion of the domain name to the right of the first period is the top-level domain (“TLD”). TLDs include .com, .gov, .net., and .biz. Each TLD is divided into second-level domains identified by the designation to the left of the first period, such as “example” in “example.com” or “example.net.” . . . Each domain name is unique and thus can only be registered to one entity . . . . A domain name is created when it is registered with the appropriate registry operator. A registry OFFICE DEPOT v. ZUCCARINI 3123 operator maintains the definitive database, or registry, that associates the registered domain names with the proper IP numbers for the respective domain name servers. The domain name servers direct Internet queries to the related web resources. A registrant can register a domain name only through companies that serve as registrars for second level domain names. Registrars accept registrations for new or expiring domain names, connect to the appropriate registry operator’s TLD servers to determine whether the name is available, and register available domain names on behalf of registrants . . . .

The majority of domain name registrations for commercial purposes utilize the .com TLD.
Coalition for ICANN Transparency, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 464 F. Supp. 2d 948, 951-53 (N.D. Cal. 2006), reversed by 567 F.3d 1084 (9th Cir. 2009).

As explained in Coalition for ICANN Transparency, there are three primary actors in the domain name system.

First, companies called “registries” operate a database (or “registry”) for all domain names within the scope of their authority.

Second, companies called “registrars” register domain names with registries on behalf of those who own the names. Registrars maintain an ownership record for each domain name
they have registered with a registry. Action by a registrar is needed to transfer ownership of a domain name from one registrant to another.

Third, individuals and companies called “registrants” own the domain names. Registrants interact with the registrars, who in turn interact with the registries.

VeriSign is the registry for the domain names “.com” and “.net”. Id. at 953. Its headquarters are located in Mountain View, California, in the Northern District of California. During discovery, DSH learned that the registrars for Zuccarini’s “.com” and “.net” domain names were located in the United States, Germany, and Israel. DSH filed a request in the district
court for a turnover order to compel the registrars of certain “.com” domain names owned by Zuccarini to transfer ownership to DSH. The district court denied the request, holding that, under California Civil Procedure Code § 699.040, it could not order third parties to turn over property. DSH then moved for the appointment of a receiver who would obtain and sell the “.com” domain names in question and would use the proceeds to satisfy the judgment. The district court granted the motion to appoint a receiver.

Zuccarini appealed. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(2) to entertain an appeal from an interlocutory order appointing a receiver.

Because VeriSign has its headquarters in the Northern District of California, the district court had quasi in rem jurisdiction over the domain names registered with VeriSign for purposes of appointing a receiver to assist in executing a judgment against the owner of the names.

Indian Web Portal Wars – Data Theft Alleged

By Leave a Comment

The beginning of 2010 saw some of the Big portals complaining about Data Theft and took legal recourse… first matter was between Travel Portals – Travelocity.co.in V. ClearTrip.com and secondly between Yellow Pages – JustDial V. Infomedia (network 18 group).

In the Travel Portal matter, Travelocity has filed an FIR with Gurgaon Poilce against CEO, Cleartrip and former MD of Desiya alleging criminal breach of trust, data theft, cheating, criminal misappropriation and criminal conspiracy. Copy of FIR reads as follows:

“Taneja had allegedly passed on the company’s intellectual property, trade secrets, sensitive data, proprietary technology source codes, their entire hotel business model and projections to Crighton including an excel file named ‘Hotels Growth Model.xls’. It further states that Taneja was terminated from Desiya on 19th September 2009.”

It is further alleged that as a result of the Data Theft, Travelocity is expected to see sharp fall in revenues upto 15%, i.e. approx Rs 200 million in the next year. (source)

In the second such matter, it is reported that JustDial has obtained injunction against Infomedia 18 Limited for running website www.askme.in, as JustDial has alleged that Infomedia 18 Limited had copied former’s database onto it’s newly launched website: www.askme.in, thereby violating JustDial’s database copyrights.

The injunction was granted exparte by the Hon’ble High Court and further order has been made for search and seizure to be carried out at Infomedia’s Delhi and Mumbai offices, as prima-facie case was made out by the Just Dial officials.

Basically, Askme.in was advertised/marketed in 2009 on a large scale by Infomedia extensively to it’s new and existing customer… and further even Infomedia yellow pages 2009-10 publication was delayed by over 7 months, i.e. till December 2009. The reason was stated that they are in the process of launching a new product called askme.in, which would help customers make more profits. Though, the delay by Infomedia 18 Limited also lead to cancellation of many advertisements, including Archer Softech’s Advertisement… as the purpose of advertisement was defeated by such a long delay !

WIPO Decision in Barkha Dutt v. easyticket, Kapavarapu, Vas

By Leave a Comment

Cybersquatting is defined as an act of registering a popular Domain name with the intent of selling it to its rightful owner at an inflated price. The Domain name may be some Company Name or a TradeMark.

In the following matter Domain Name “BarkhaDutt.com” was registered by Mr Vas Kapavarapu (the respondent) of Hyderabad on 8 January 2007 with GoDaddy. As a result, the well known journalist Ms Barkha Dutt (the complainant) filed the complaint with WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center on 22 September 2009.

Ms. Barkha Dutt v. easyticket, Kapavarapu, Vas
Case No. D2009-1247

Parties’ Contentions

 A. Complainant

The Complainant works with the NDTV News Channel as Group Editor and is an
anchor/host for various PrimeTime shows. The Complainant initially acquired fame as a broadcast journalist reporting from Kargil and from other conflict zones. The youngest journalist to receive the Padmashri Award, India’s highest civilian honor, she has received more than thirty national and international awards.

The Complainant claims that her name is widely recognized by the public and any reference to “Barkha Dutt” is instantly associated with her alone, as the renown Indian journalist and no other entity has rights to use the name. The Complainant states
that her name is distinctive and has acquired secondary meaning, which has
trademark significance. Her name therefore ought to be accorded protection
as a trademark and a domain name serves as an identity mark on the Internet.

The Complainant asserts that due to the fame associated with her name, she enjoys the status of a celebrity, and it is well-known that celebrities have the right to restrain third parties from exploiting their name and fame.  Therefore the disputed domain name, which wholly incorporates her name, not only impinges her rights, but also causes deception and confusion to users. The Complainant states that she has not authorized the Respondent to use her name. Further, as the Respondent’s name is not “Barkha Dutt”, he has no interest in the name. The purpose of the Respondent’s registration of the domain name is for renting, selling or otherwise transferring it for valuable consideration or for deriving illegal gains by capitalizing on the fame and goodwill associated with her name.

B. Respondent

The Respondent states that the words “Barkha” and “Dutt” are Sanskrit word… the literal dictionary meaning of the composite term “Barkhadutt” is “adaption of rain/life giving”. The Respondent further states that he had registered the disputed domain name two years ago with the intention of developing it into a fan site or blog dedicated to rains and rain harvesting.

The Respondent further states that he is the owner of several domain names and goes on to state that his collection of domain names does not include celebrity names or “copyright names”. The Respondent emphasizes that he has rights in the disputed domain name because his only intention in registration of the disputed domain name, was to run a website related to rains and rainwater preservation.

The Respondent argues that he has not used the domain name in bad faith and he denies ever having used it for gambling, pornography or any such illegal activity. The Respondent further states that he has not used the domain name in relation to journalism, which is the field of the Complainant’s work.

Discussion and Findings
The Policy requires the Complainant to establish three elements under paragraph 4(a) to obtain transfer of the disputed domain name.

(i) The domain name registered by the Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and

(ii) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and

(iii) The domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith by the Respondent.

 And as all the elements were held to be present in the said matter, therefore the Panel ordered that the domain name <barkhadutt.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

Read more about the decision here…

Read more about Cybersquatting here