Domain Name Speculation and Cybersquatting: Is ICANN-Based Enforcement Sufficient for Indian Businesses?

Diya Naidu (NIDAN IPR Research Series 2026)

INTRODUCTION

With the advent of science and technology, human life has been completely transformed. The methods of communication have also evolved because of the introduction of the internet. The transition of businesses from traditional marketplace to online mode has transformed commercial activities facilitating businesses to operate digitally and expand globally. And the internet has emerged as a medium bridging the communication between individuals, businesses, institutions and networks. Expansion of digital commerce has made domain names vital business assets. On the other hand, it has also increased cybersquatting where a person registers a domain name with the bad faith intention to earn profit from another person’s goodwill. To address the domain name disputes ICANN introduced the Uniform domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy in 1999 supporting expeditious, low-cost dispute resolution mechanism. However, udrp suffers from significant shortcomings including cost, procedure, jurisdiction. These factors become major obstacles for Indian businesses especially MSMEs. As India lacks specific cybersquatting law forcing courts to rely on existing trademark law and passing off principles.   

OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

• To examine the accessibility of the UDRP for Indian MSMEs.

• To analyze what are procedural challenges faced by Indian MSMEs under the UDRP framework.

• To suggest reforms for improving the protection for Indian MSME’s in domain name system.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

• Whether the current UDRP framework is accessible to Indian MSME’s in terms of cost, procedure and legal complexity?

• Whether lack of monetary relief under UDRP creates a disproportionate disadvantage for Indian MSME in domain name disputes?

• What are the possible solutions needed in UDRP to ensure fairness and effective protection for Indian MSMEs?    

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The present study implements a doctrinal and analytical research methodology. It is based on qualitative analysis of primary and secondary legal sources. Primary sources include statutes, ICANN policies, udrp rules, judicial pronouncements, while secondary source includes books, journal articles, reports by law commission, and online sources. The study also adopts comparative approach wherever necessary to examine the state of Indian MSMEs under the udrp system.

ACCESSIBILITY IN TERMS OF COST

Although the UDRP is often described as a cost-effective and much faster dispute resolution mechanism than litigation[1], the economic realities for MSMEs in India are different. UDRP accessibility remains limited, primarily for disputes involving top level domains (gTLDs) such as .com, .org, .net.[2] 

UDRP service providers approved by ICANN charge all fees in US dollars as mentioned in the above table as well for ex A basic WIPO filing fees is USD 1500 which is Rs.1,43,888.25 after conversion for one to five domains with a single panelist.[3]  In recent years depreciation of Indian rupees has exacerbated the economic burden linked to international dispute resolution procedures such as UDRP. The rupee faced substantial decline in value from Rs.17 per USD in 1991 to Rs.92 per USD in 2026.[4] 

According to Reserve Bank of India’s reference exchange rate of 1 USD = ₹95.9255[5] the ICANN fee automatically becomes more expensive in rupees as the domestic currency weakens. The Ministry of MSMEs Annual Report for 2024-25 classified 98.64% of registered MSMEs as micro enterprises.[6] Among the micro, small, medium enterprises micro forms the backbone of Indian economy in terms of its contribution, for many micro businesses these out-of-pocket expenses can be excessive. For Example, A microenterprise whose turnover is Rs 5 crore at a 3% profit margin earns approximately Rs 15 lakh annually (net profit) and Wipo filing cost is Rs 1.4 lakhs and it would therefore consume its nearly 9-10% of profits also excluding legal representation and other expenses.

But this expense barrier needs to be understood in its context. Firstly, the UDRP applies mostly to gTLDs for .in domains, Indian MSMEs can use the Indrp which charges much lesser approximately Rs 35,400 including arbitrator and administration fess making it affordable primarily for domestic operations.[7] Second for gTLD disputes UDRP is still more affordable than litigation which frequently involves much higher lawyer’s fees, court costs, and delays of years in contrast udrp cases are usually settled in two months. Third is the Czech Arbitration Court its filing fee starts from USD 800 not all UDRP providers charges the same it is among cheapest.[8] eventually Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS) is an affordable, faster rather than transferring it suspends providing quick option for suspected instances of cybersquatting on gTLDs.

Therefore, the main contention is not that UDRP is inaccessible everywhere but rather the USD denominated fees which are made worse by the depreciation of the rupee creates as structural affordability gap for Indian micro businesses who needs to safeguard gTLDs in foreign markets. The core issue lies not merely in currency depreciation but in the structural mismatch between globally set USD fess and the limited and the limited financial capacity of micro businesses. INDRP considerably reduces the issue for domestic. in domains, but unless MSMES can take use of less expensive UDRP providers, alternative dispute resolution techniques, URS, the cost barrier for gTLDs will remain substantial.

PROCEDURAL COMPLEXITY - VAGUE DEFINATION OF BAD FAITH

In order to win a case under udrp a complainant must prove three specific elements. “First domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which complainant has rights. Second the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. Third element is to prove that domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.”[9] The procedural complexity of the udrp becomes more complex because many important terms in the policy are vague and different panel frequently adopt inconsistent interpretations of these terms. The term “bad faith” is not clearly defined leading to inconsistent decisions in different UDRP cases. In the case of Telstra Corporation limited v Nuclear Marshmallows[10] panel held that despite the lack of overt action registration alone may be sufficient to establish bad faith in particular circumstances.

Although in Loblaws Inc v. Yogeninternational[11] the panel said that just keeping the website inactive or showing an “under construction” page was not enough to prove bad faith. So, the respondent was allowed to keep the domain name, even though the panel suspected bad intention at the time of registration.[12]

TWENTY DAY DEADLINE

After the commencement of the administrative proceeding under UDRP respondent is given twenty days’ time to file the reply under Rule 5 (a) of UDRP rules.[13] However timeline was introduced for expeditious dispute resolution, its uniform application creates a structurally inequitable burden on Indian (MSMEs). MSMEs face a severe time problem because they lack Internet savvy, in house intellectual property lawyers, or indeed any lawyer at all. For such enterprises twenty days’ time is not period for preparing a defence it’s time which they consume for finding competent lawyer for defending their case as well to translate complex legal document, understanding  and write the response for it.[14] Study with respect to MSMES have shown that lack of awareness regarding intellectual property right, definite expertise, and lack of institutional legal support continue to affect their ability to effectively protect and enforce intellectual property rights.[15] 

Thus, by the time valuable response drafting begins, there is a greater possibility that the deadline will have already past. Regarding the global udrp default rate, over 75% of cases since 1999 have been reportedly been identified without any response from the respondents. Even though intentional cybersquatter may be involved in some defaults, but many respondents would prefer not get involved because they are unable to understand the procedure. Although Rule 5 (d) permits for extension of four days however it is discretionary and does not automatically available. On the other hand, twenty days is sufficient for a big corporation with their lawyer’s team which are expert in intellectual property rights to give the response swiftly and prepare a sufficient defence within the window time.[16] Therefore, the procedural structure of the UDRP is likely to disproportionately burden Indian MSMEs while favouring economically stronger entities with specialized legal expertise and resources.

ABSENCE OF MONETARY REMEDIES

Under UDRP proceedings the remedies available to a complainant are limited to the transfer or cancellation of the domain name and no compensation awarded to the sufferer.[17] The primary objective of the UDRP was to serve as a summary mechanism for cases which involves clear cut cybersquatting rather than a forum for comprehensive trademark relief which is apparent in its framework. However Indian MSMES are especially impacted by this restriction. In contrast United States Anti Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act permits statutory damages ranging from not less than $1,000 to not more than $100,000 per domain.[18] Under the Act it is discretion of the federal court whether to award monetary compensation obtaining such relief is neither simple nor inexpensive and - a claim pursuing under ACPA requires formal litigation, legal representation and sufficient financial resources. Although Indian trademark law provides monetary relief but because of high litigation costs and prolonged delays make such remedies largely inaccessible to micro-enterprises. As a result, limited remedies under the udrp amounts to an effective denial of compensation.  

Even if an Indian MSME prevails in a UDRP proceeding, it receives no compensation for lost customer traffic, reputational damage, or harm to goodwill. Although it may be argued that Indian MSMEs can obtain financial redress through passing-off cases or proceedings under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 before Indian courts, the high costs, delays, and procedural challenges associated with such remedies frequently render them ineffectual in practice. The Law Commission recognised that expense of litigation creates a serious economic obstacle to access justice observing that litigation has become luxury for rich.[19] Study found that 90% of litigants in India earn less than Rs 3 lakhs annually.[20]  Total litigation costs in trademark litigation professional fees are 3 to 5 lakhs for district court proceeding and 10 to 12.5 lakh for high court.[21] Even at the lower end of this range MSMEs with annual revenue of 50 lakhs it would be inaccessible. According to empirical data, more than 60% of commercial lawsuits are still pending two years later, with a median disposal time of 1,580 days (4.3 years).[22] This creates a disadvantage for Indian MSMEs: the of lack of compsention under udrp framework means they are unable to compensate for losses occurred in business. Reforms are needed to ensure fair protections for small business against cybersquatters. 

JURISDICTIONAL IMBALANCE - REVERSE DOMAIN NAME HIJACKING

Reverse Domain Name Hijacking occurs when a complainant in certain cases tries to take undue advantage of their famous name and brings a udrp complaint in bad faith in an attempt to harass the domain name holder given under rule 15 (e) of udrp. When trademark holder acts in bad faith and takes over control of a domain name from a domain name owner it refers to as reverse domain name hijacking.

In the case of HSIL Limited v. Get on the Web Limited[23], it demonstrated the procedural and jurisdictional difficulties faced by Indian businesses within udrp the framework. Two Indian companies filed a complaint against a UK respondent for domain names which were already registered years before the complainants acquired their trademark rights. The complainants failed to prove three prong tests despite being represented by counsel and a three-member WIPO panel declared the complaint to constitute RDNH.

The panel criticized the complainants counsel for “an alarming unfamiliarity with the UDRP and the two decades of precedent under it,” observing that such conduct “in any court would result in a swift dismissal and appropriate sanctions.” Despite the fact that complainants were Indian companies and were found guilty of RNDH the case emphasizes how complicated international domain name laws can be and how difficult it is for Indian businesses to deal with trademark rules set at the global level. Indian lawyers were pointed out by the panel that they were not fully equipped with earlier decisions and Indian MSMEs with no special expertise are even in worse condition. This highlights a significant issue with access to justice many Indian MSMEs frequently lack the specialized legal expertise and resources required to engage in ICANN's dispute-resolution system. 

LACK OF AWARNESS AND SPECIALISED KNOWLEDGE

It creates a significant disadvantage for Indian MSMEs because of lack of awareness regarding ICANN procedures and international domain name protection. Many MSMES remain unfamiliar with cybersquatting risks, udrp proceedings, or domain name registration practices. Their primary focus is on domestic business operations.[24] A wipo study on Indian MSMEs identified low legal literacy, lack of specialized professionals, and insufficient institutional support as major barriers to effective Ip protection. An earlier TERI Study found that SMEs sector is not getting many benefits from the post- trips system because they have limited knowledge about intellectual property rights and faces difficulties in accessing the Ip system.[25]

Many MSMEs fail to take early preventive measures, respond properly to complaints and do not understand the legal consequences of domain name disputes under the ICANN framework. The perception that MSMEs hold that Ip protection is costly and complex creates a psychological barrier even when government support and fees reductions are available to them.[26] The confusion between INDRP (for .in domains) and UDRP for gTLDs is another area of a lack of awareness which leaves many companies uncertain which forum to approach when a dispute arises.

ADVERSE UDRP DECISIONS AND ENFORCEMENT REALITIES FOR INDIAN MSMES

The udrp framework decisions are enforceable through contractual authority over domain name registrars rather than through direct judicial enforcement in India. Once a udrp complaint is filed the registrar locks the disputed domain name in order to prevent transfer or modification during pendency of proceedings and decision given by the panel whether to transfer or cancel the domain name has to be followed by registrar.[27] However enforcement could be suspended if the losing party files a lawsuit within ten business days in a mutual jurisdiction defined as either the registrar’s location or the registrant’s address listed in the registration database. Thus, Indian msme can delay enforcement by approaching an Indian court. The enforcement realities become more complex because Indian courts had acknowledged the limited legal status of udrp proceedings within the domestic legal framework.

In case[28] the Delhi High Court held that a WIPO administrative panel does fall under the definition of “registrar” under the Trademarks Act 1999 thus limiting the availability of statutory appeals against udrp rulings. Similarly in another case[29] the Delhi High Court explained the udrp and indrp proceedings are contractual and administrative mechanisms binding registrars, registrants, and complainants rather traditional judicial adjudication. Adverse udrp decisions may disproportionately affect Indian MSMEs because of a smaller number of resources to engage in cross-border litigation or concurrent trademark actions. Therefore, even while the UDRP offers a quick administrative remedy, its actual enforceability against Indian MSMEs is still questionable in cases where a determined party is prepared to file a lawsuit domestically.

SUGGESTIONS

• ICANN should introduce subsidized filing fee or different fee structure for MSMEs from developing countries involving disputes pertaining to gTLDs. This would increase accessibility and would lessen the financial distress created by us dollars.

• Procedural flexibility under the udrp framework should be given to especially small businesses respondents who lack expert lawyers team or requires translate support.

• ICANN should define terms clearly such as ‘bad faith’ to reduce inconsistent panel decisions. 

• Awareness programmes should be conducted by ICANN and WIPO in collaboration with Ministry of Micro, small medium enterprises of India to educate and make them aware regarding cybersquatting risks and domain name protections.

• Legal Aid support, institutional legal mechanisms should be provided for MSMEs to help them in understanding ICANN procedures, and preparing efficient responses for claim or defence.

• Udrp framework should also consider introducing limited compensation remedy to the party who had suffered a lot in their business because of cybersquatting.

• A fast-track enforcement mechanism should be implemented to guarantee that Udrp decisions are carried out faster and efficiently.

CONCLUSION

The UDRP has undoubtedly provided a faster and more effective alternative to traditional litigation in domain name disputes. However, for Indian MSMEs, challenges still persist in terms of cost, procedural complexity, no monetary remedies, and enforcement issues continues to restrict effective access to justice. While mechanisms such as INDRP and alternative dispute resolution system offers some relief, but structural inequalities still remain within global framework. Therefore, reforms are necessary such as affordability, procedural fairness and increasing awareness among the MSMEs to ensure that they can safeguard their digital identities and properly engage in the global online economy without any fear.

[1] WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center, ‘WIPO Guide to the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP)’ (WIPO, 2026) https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/guide/ accessed 15 May 2026.

[2] WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center, ‘UDRP Procedures for Generic Top-Level Domains (gTLDs)’ (WIPO) https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/gtld/udrp/ accessed 15 May 2026.

[3] WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center, ‘Schedule of Fees under the UDRP (valid as of December 1, 2002)’ https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/fees/ accessed 15 May 2026.

[4] S Vijay Kumar, ‘Depreciation of INR Against USD: A Critical Analysis’ (2026) 5-6.

[5] Reserve Bank of India, ‘Exchange Rates’ (RBI Website, 15 May 2026) https://m.rbi.org.in//home.aspx accessed 15 May 2026.

[6] Ministry of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises, ‘Annual Report 2024-25’ (Government of India, 2025) 34.

[7].IN Registry, ‘INDRP Rules of Procedure’ (National Internet Exchange of India) https://www.registry.in/indrprulesprocedure accessed 16 May 2026, s 22(g).

[8] Czech Arbitration Court, ‘Fees of the Czech Arbitration Court (CAC)’ https://udrp.adr.eu/fees accessed 16 May 2026.

[9] ICANN, ‘Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy’ (Approved 21 February 2024) https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/udrp-policy-2024-02-21-en accessed 17 May 2026.

[10] Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No. D2000-0003.

[11] Loblaws, Inc. v. Yogeninternational, AF-0164 (eResolutionJune 9, 2000).

[12] Sourabh Ghosh, ‘Domain Name Disputes and Evaluation of The ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy’ (2004) 9(5) Journal of Intellectual Property Rights 424, 433.

[13] ICANN, ‘Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy Rules’ (as approved 24 October 1999, amended effective 21 February 2024) https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/udrp-rules-2024-02-21-en accessed 17 May 2026, Rule 5(a).

[14] A Michael Froomkin, ‘ICANN’s “Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy” – Causes and (Partial) Cures’ (2002) 67 Brooklyn Law Review 605, 674-75.

[15] World Intellectual Property Organization, ‘National Experiences on Awareness Raising’ (WIPO/ACE/17/6, 21 January 2025) https://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/enforcement/en/wipo_ace_17/wipo_ace_17_6_prov.pdf accessed 20 May 2026, paras 13-16.

[16] Lingtong Kong, ‘A Brief Review of UDRP: Achievements, Challenges and Recommendations’ (2017) 3(1) China and WTO Review 151-152.

[17] ICANN, ‘Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy’ (as approved 24 October 1999) https://www.icann.org/en/contracted-parties/consensus-policies/uniform-domain-name-dispute-resolution-policy/uniform-domain-name-dispute-resolution-policy-25-02-2012-en accessed 21 May 2026, para 4(i).

[18] US Anti Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA), 1999. 

[19] Law Commission of India, 128th Report, paras 1.1, 2.1-2.2 (1988)

[20] DAKSH, Access to Justice Survey (2016) 4 https://dakshindia.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Daksh-access-to-justice-survey.pdf accessed 21 May 2026.

[21] R K Dewan & Co, ‘Moving towards the Era of Importance of Legal Fees’ (R K Dewan, 23 January 2025) https://www.rkdewan.com/articles/moving-towards-the-era-of-importance-of-legal-fees/ accessed 18 January 2026.

[22] Bhargavi Zaveri-Shah and Pavithra Manivannan, ‘10 Years of the Commercial Courts Act—Has the Law Delivered on Its Promise?’ The Print (3 November 2025) https://theprint.in/opinion/10-years-of-commercial-courts-act-law-promise/2775949/ accessed 21 May 2026.

[23] HSIL Ltd v Get on the Web Ltd (WIPO Case No D2020-3416, 6 April 2021) https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/text/2020/d2020-3416.html accessed 21 May, 2026.

[24] World Intellectual Property Organization, ‘National Experiences on Awareness Raising’ (WIPO/ACE/17/6, 21 January 2025) https://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/enforcement/en/wipo_ace_17/wipo_ace_17_6_prov.pdf accessed 20 May 2026, paras 13-16.

[25] TERI, ‘SMEs “Not Benefiting Much” from Post-TRIPS Dispensation: Study’ The Economic Times (13 March 2013), https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/industry/telecom/smes-not-benefiting-much-from-post-trips-dispensation-study/printarticle/18954374.cms accessed 20 May 2026.

[26] World Intellectual Property Organization, National Experiences on Awareness Raising (n 1).

[27] ICANN, ‘Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”)’ (approved 28 September 2013, updated 21 February 2024) https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/udrp-rules-2024-02-21-en accessed 21 May 2026, Rule 5(a).

[28]Ashwa Ghosh v. Vizrt AG is FAO-IPD 5/2023.

[29] Mukesh Udeshi v Jindal Steel & Power Ltd (2024) SCC OnLine Del 4564.

Suggested Citation:

Diya Naidu, Domain Name Speculation and Cybersquatting: Is ICANN-Based Enforcement Sufficient for Indian Businesses?, NIDAN IPR Research Series 2026 (NIDAN Ctr. for Legal & Pol'y Rsch., Oct. 16, 2026).