Mahindras dislodge cyber-squatters

26 May 2000

India’s leading automotive and farm equipment company, Mahindra & Mahindra Limited (M&M) joined a growing list of corporate entities which have succeeded in getting their names, wrongly usurped by cyber squatters, back. They have been able to do this, thanks to a new ‘uniform domain name dispute resolution policy’ adopted by the International Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), the apex body that controls the allotment of Internet domain names.

Under the new policy ICANN has authorised three global bodies to hear cases of cyber squatting and the decision handed down by these bodies is binding on all the parties concerned. The aggrieved parties can make use of this policy if the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or a service mark of the aggrieved party or the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. Further, if these bodies believe that the name ought to be transferred to the complainant, it can, by an executive order, ensure that the domain name registrars transfer the names to the rightful owner.

One such body is the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) which has handed out significant judgements that has seen important corporate names return back to the corporate fold.

In M&M’s case, a young student residing in Andhra Pradesh, registered the domain names, mahindra.com, mahindra.net and mahindra.org, in his name. When the company officials approached him, the names were immediately transferred to a cousin of the individual residing in the US. This name transfer was done to avoid any court proceedings in India.

It was then that M&M decided to take advantage of the new policy for name dispute redressal announced by ICAAN. It appealed to the WIPO stating that the name Mahindra was a registered trademark in India and the United States. Further, the company contended in its application that its name was synonymous with motor vehicles and tractors.

At the hearing of the case chaired by a single officer, the panelist concluded that the respondent’s claim to have registered the name for the possible launch of a free e-mail site, did not constitute a right or legitimate interest in the domain name. While the panelist wanted some more details in respect of the domain name mahindra.com, he ordered that the other two names, mahindra.net and mahindra.org, be immediately transferred in favour of the Indian company.