Skip to content
Subscribe
← Back
Other IP

INDRP in India: Domain Name Disputes, Cybersquatting and Bad Faith | Its IP Time

23 min read In-depth analysis
INDRP in India: Domain Name Disputes, Cybersquatting, Bad Faith and UDRP - Its IP Time

Reading Tools

Introduction

A domain name today is more than simply a traffic enabler. To most businesses, it is a communication channel with the consumer, while for some it even contains commercial value embedded into its trademark. Cybersquatting targets precisely these potential values by registering a domain name that is identical or at least similar to an existing trademark or company name and using it either to sell to the rightful owner at an inflated price, withhold it from them, or take advantage of the consumer mix-up to redirect the traffic and appropriate the value.

India does not have any specific law that directly deals with domain names or cybersquatting. The first cases in the late 1990s raised the issue of whether a domain name could even be protected in the first place, and on what grounds. In the Yahoo! Inc. v. Akash Arora case (1999), the Delhi High Court was the first to rule on this issue. The defendant had registered the domain name yahooindia.com, and the plaintiff argued that the mere addition of “India” to “Yahoo!” does not dispel confusion. The court held that the domain name falls under the rubric of passing off, and the law of passing off applies to domain names, despite the fact that the statute does not explicitly mention them. A few months later, the Bombay High Court came to a similar conclusion in the Rediff Communication Ltd v. Cyberbooth case (AIR 2000 Bom 27). It held that the domain name rediff.com had to be treated as a registered trademark because it had acquired recognition and goodwill. This ruling also applies to similar domain names such as “radiff.com” because the value of a domain name to a business renders it a commercial asset in itself. The Delhi High Court took a similar view in Tata Sons Ltd. v. Manu Kishori (2001) while permanently restraining the defendants from using a group of domains incorporating the TATA trademark on the ground that domain names are assets of the company and as such they are entitled to the same protection as trademarks.

The Supreme Court answered this question finally in Satyam Infoway Ltd. v. Siffynet Solutions (P) Ltd. (2004) 6 SCC 145. Satyam Infoway, incorporated in 1995, had coined the word ‘Sify’ from its own corporate name and registered various domain names carrying the mark with ICANN and WIPO in 1999. Siffynet on its part registered siffynet.com and siffynet.net. The Supreme Court held that a domain name is not simply an Internet address but something by virtue of which one can identify the goods or services of one trader from those of another and that though there was no specific legislation in India governing domain names, they were nevertheless protectable under the common law tort of passing off. It thus set aside the judgment of the Karnataka High Court refusing to grant an injunction and reinstated the trial court’s order granting such relief to the appellant.

These decisions made it possible for a complainant to always seek an injunction in a civil court for passing off or infringement where the domain name contains the registered trademark in India but did not provide a quick resolution, which was required because litigation for a dispute regarding a domain name often takes time, even to get an interim order. .IN registry, through NIXI, took the decision to institute .IN Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (INDRP) in 2005-06 which created an arbitration mechanism similar to the UDRP but specific to the .in domains, for the quick resolution of disputes without the high costs involved in a civil lawsuit. In this article, we review the INDRP procedure and compare it to the UDRP and discuss the recent trend in Delhi High Court decisions tightening the bad-faith standard under INDRP.

INDRP – Structure and Governing Framework

The .IN Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy is overseen by the National Internet Exchange of India (NIXI), the organization that manages the.in country-code top-level domain. The.IN Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy was first adopted in 2005. The.IN Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy was significantly amended in September 2020.  The amendment rectified drafting inconsistencies in the original Policy. For instance, the initial Policy contained no “and” between the three grounds for a complainant’s relief which created ambiguity regarding whether all three conditions needed to be met or if any one of them would suffice. In the amended Policy, all three grounds for relief are cumulative.

INDRP is not a statute. Its implementation is done through the Registry Accreditation Agreement that accredited Registrars sign with NIXI. By registering a.in or.bharat domain name, with any Registrar a domain registrant agrees to follow the dispute resolution procedure set out in the Policy. The Policy states that disputes must be resolved by Arbitration and Conciliation following the rules of The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 as updated by The Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2019. In other words, adjudication under INDRP is arbitration, not court litigation or administrative proceedings. The awards are issued by a sole arbitrator appointed from the panel of arbitrators maintained by the .IN Registry.

This structure has two implications which are relevant to the further discussion in this article. Firstly, because INDRP proceedings are conducted as arbitration under a binding statute, the resulting awards carry the same enforceability and finality as any other arbitral award (i.e., can only be annulled or set aside on the grounds specified in Section 34 of the Arbitration Act). Secondly, by virtue of being based on the ICANN Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy and following the WIPO guidelines, the INDRP shares with UDRP the same structural similarities, despite the differences in certain specific procedural rules, which will be discussed further below.

Key differences between INDRP vs. UDRP

INDRP was consciously modelled on UDRP, and the two policies share significant similarities, such as the private arbitration-like proceedings that may be initiated by a trademark proprietor against a domain name registered by another party to obtain transfer or cancellation of the domain, without going to court. However, there are important differences between the two policies, which affect the manner in which a complaint is to be framed and argued under each policy.

Scope

UDRP applies to gTLDs such as .com, .net, and .org, and is administered by ICANN-accredited providers, WIPO’s Arbitration and Mediation Center alone has handled over 80,000 UDRP cases to date, including 6,200 in 2025. INDRP, by contrast, applies only to .in and .bharat domains and is administered solely by NIXI.

INDRP only applies to domains under.in and .bharat and is managed only by NIXI.

The bad-faith standard

UDRP’s paragraph 4(a)(iii) requires that the complainant prove that the domain “has been registered and is being used in bad faith ” each of which must be proven individually.

INDRP’s amended Rules of Procedure adopt a lower standard, under which either bad faith registration or bad faith use must be established. A registrant who acquired a .in domain innocently but subsequently started using it in bad faith could be ordered to transfer it by INDRP in such a case, while UDRP’s conjunctive standard would not allow that.

Panel selection

Under UDRP Rule 3(b)(iv), the complainant elects at the outset whether the dispute is decided by a single panelist or a three-member panel. If the complainant elects a single panelist, the respondent may still opt for a three-member panel instead under Rule 5(b)(iv), though the respondent must then pay half the three-member panel fee. By contrast, INDRP’s amended Rules of Procedure do not provide for any choice, and only single-member panels are possible, appointed by NIXI. The parties may object to the selected individual in writing within seven days, after which NIXI will decide on the objection.

Cost and pleadings

An INDRP complaint requires payment of official filing fees of Rs. 35,400 plus Rs. 2,360 for each proposed personal hearing (limited to two). The number of words in the complaint and reply is limited to 5,000 excluding annexures, which are limited to 100 pages. By contrast, UDRP filing fees are determined by the selected provider, and the costs vary between them, but the process as a whole appears to be faster, with WIPO, for example, stating average processing times of around 45-60 days from receipt of the complaint.

Recourse to domestic courts

Both policies provide for litigation in domestic courts. However, UDRP provides for such a remedy as an option for either party to sue in the appropriate courts prior to, during, or following the administrative proceeding and also provides that the domain name shall not be transferred, by the Registrar, until fifteen (15) business days have elapsed from the date on which the administrative proceeding has terminated. Unlike UDRP, INDRP being a statutory arbitration under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is different inasmuch as it provides for limited grounds for challenging awards by way of an application to set aside under Section 34 of the said Act, filed before the High Court having jurisdiction over the seat of arbitration. The award of the INDRP tribunal is therefore final and binding subject to such challenge under Section 34 of the Act. The Delhi High Court’s approach in Mukesh Udeshi v. Jindal Steel Power Ltd., where Justice Pratibha Singh declined to set aside an arbitral award in a domain name dispute, illustrates how narrowly courts apply the Section 34 grounds in practice. The NIXI policy provides that the disputed domain name remains locked for ninety (90) days from the date of the decision, in order to preserve the status quo in case either party files a Section 34 application to set aside before the High Court having jurisdiction.

Remedies

Both policies have the same stand in as far as remedies are concerned in that neither allows monetary damages by way of compensation for the harm caused or suffered by the respondent to the complainant. The only remedies available are the cancellation or transfer of the domain name to the complainant.

Filing Process Under INDRP

An INDRP complaint may be brought by any person or entity that believes that a .in domain name registered under INDRP is conflicting with their trademark or rightful business interests. It is a streamlined process compared to full blown civil litigation but is more paperwork heavy than a typical adversarial dispute resolution proceeding.

Filing the complaint

The complaint is filed by the complainant with the registry (INDRP) at New Delhi, in the office of NIXI, along with a power of attorney if the complaint is filed by a representative, and documents supporting the complaint which establish the complainant’s standing in the mark. Per the amended Rules of Procedure, the complaint and any replies to the same are limited to 5,000 words in aggregate, with the annexures not exceeding 100 pages. These limitations are designed to make the process efficient, although an arbitrator may consider the evidence beyond the limitations if they find it to be relevant.

Filing fees

The filing fees are paid to NIXI at the time of filing and consist of Rs. 35,400 per domain name as of the date of publication plus an additional Rs. 2,360 per personal hearing with a maximum of 2 such hearings allowed. Since each infringing domain registration requires a separate proceeding, targeting multiple domains requires multiple complaints.

Domain Lock

Once the complaint is filed with NIXI, the registry notifies the registrar who places the disputed domain name on lock so that it cannot be transferred away during the pendency of the dispute. The domain remains locked for 90 days after the decision becomes final, so that either party may seek further remedies from the court if needed.

Naming the arbitrator

An arbitrator is named by NIXI from the list of arbitrators maintained by it within 5 days of receipt of the complaint. While the parties involved in the dispute have no say in who arbitrates their case, either party may object to the arbitrator named by NIXI within 7 days from being notified of the arbitrator’s appointment. The objecting party must provide reasons as to why they object and NIXI will determine whether the objections are justified.

Response and personal hearings

The respondent is entitled to reply to the complaint and the arbitrator will set a hearing if either party requests one, but personal hearings are limited to two per case and are held via video conference. The discovery as known from the civil litigation is not used in INDRP proceedings and the arbitration is conducted on the basis of the documents filed by the parties. The evidence and arguments presented by the parties are therefore extremely important.

Award and effect thereof

The arbitrator then issues an award. That award is final and binding on the parties according to Rule 8 of the INDRP Rules of Procedure. The award cannot be appealed on its merits. The High Court may set aside that award under Section 34(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. This can happen if the award was passed beyond the powers of the Arbitration Act, 1996 or if the award violated the public policy of India. The setting aside petition can be filed with the High Court which has jurisdiction over the place of arbitration.

The Bad-Faith Test

Every INDRP complaint involves Paragraph 4, which sets out the three grounds on which an arbitration tribunal must base its decision to transfer or cancel a domain. These are, briefly:

  • 4(a) the disputed domain name is exactly the same or very similar to a name, trademark or service mark that the complainant has rights to.
  • 4(b) the respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name and
  • 4(c) the disputed domain name has been registered or is being used in faith.

Since the September 2020 amendment, which clarified that the three grounds, in Paragraph 4 are cumulative not alternative, a complainant must show that all of them are satisfied.

Paragraph 4 does not define what constitutes bad faith. Instead, it lists several examples of conduct that may be relevant in establishing such bad faith, any one of which, if proven, is sufficient for a finding of bad faith registration or use of the domain name. According to Paragraph 4(c), bad faith exists where, inter alia, the domain name has been registered:

for the purpose of selling or transferring it to the complainant or a third party for value, significantly higher than the documented costs of registration and use by the respondent, and/or to prevent the complainant from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name if such prevention constitutes a pattern of such conduct, registration or use of the domain name disrupts the business of a competitor of the respondent, or the domain name is used to intentionally mislead or divert consumers into visiting it by creating a likelihood of confusion as to its source or endorsement by or association with the complainant.

As the examples of bad faith are not exhaustive, arbitration tribunals have discretion to consider other conduct of the respondent on the particular facts of a case.

The case of Maruti Suzuki Ltd. v. Nitin Bhamri (INDRP/136) is an example of a complainant’s success in proving that registration of the domain name marutisuzukieeco.co.in was in bad faith. Since the disputed name is virtually identical to Maruti’s trademark, the respondent could not satisfy the obligation to prove that it had rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. The tribunal therefore found that the respondent had registered the domain in bad faith. This category also encompasses domain names that differ from trademarks in minor ways, such as by having additional letters at the beginning or the end. This is consistent with the general principle that minor variations, extra letters or words appended to a mark, do not defeat a finding of confusing similarity.

Recent cases regarding bad faith in domain name registration or use

Two recent high-profile decisions by a Single Judge Bench of the Delhi High Court in 2026, both dealing with challenges to awards of Section 34 INDRP tribunals, demonstrate that courts have taken a strictly scrutinizing view of claims of bad faith on the part of domain-name registrants.

In Oracle International Corporation v. CIS IT Solutions Pvt. Ltd. (O.M.P. (COMM) 232/2024), Oracle moved to set aside an award that had refused to transfer the domain name exadata.in . Although Oracle owned the registered trademark EXADATA, the arbitration tribunal concluded that its similarity with the disputed domain name was not sufficient to find the respondent had violated the INDRP Policy. According to Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, there was no bad faith on the part of the respondent, CIS IT Solutions Pvt. Ltd. The Court held that deceptive similarity alone does not entitle a complainant to transfer of a domain under INDRP; the complainant must separately establish absence of legitimate interest and bad faith. While a prima facie case of similarity can shift the burden onto the respondent to show legitimate interest, Justice Shankar found no basis to disturb the tribunal’s factual finding that Oracle had failed to establish bad faith registration or use, a conclusion that fell within the arbitrator’s province and outside the limited scope of Section 34 review. Justice Shankar agreed with the tribunal’s finding that the facts of the case were insufficient to conclude the respondent acted in bad faith.

By contrast, Mr. Pathan Imrankhan Zafarullakhan & Anr. v. Microsoft Corporation (O.M.P. (COMM) 223/2026) is a case in which the Delhi High Court set aside an arbitral tribunal’s finding that the registration of the domain name exceltotally.in constitutes bad faith use. According to Justice Shankar, the tribunal made did not independently consider the respondents’ intent or whether the respondents acted fraudulently in registering the domain, which contained Microsoft’s registered trademark EXCEL. Incorporating the Microsoft trademark into the domain name does not, in itself, violate INDRP Paragraph 4(c). In order to register the disputed domain name, the respondents should have acted with fraudulent intent or with the intent to use the domain name for commercial purposes in a manner that takes unfair advantage of the reputation of the complainant. The tribunal’s failure to consider these factual elements deprived its award of Section 34 review by the High Court. Taken together, the two cases illustrate the standards of proof that an INDRP tribunal must adopt when determining whether the domain name is registered or used in bad faith. An INDRP tribunal’s determination as to bad faith, for or against the complainant, may be overturned by the Delhi High Court if it fails to assess the intent or fraudulent motives on the part of the respondent. In particular, the similarity of a domain name to a registered trademark is not sufficient to find that the respondent acted in bad faith.

For complainants, the implications of these recent decisions are significant. As discussed in the following section, a complainant’s chances of success in an INDRP proceeding depend on the extent to which it can demonstrate that the respondent’s actions constitute bad faith.

Remedies Available under INDRP

The relief available under INDRP is narrow, and it is important to distinguish precisely what an arbitrator may and may not be able to order, since this determines whether INDRP or a civil suit, or both, are appropriate remedies for a complainant.

Transfer or cancellation only. 

Paragraph 4 read with the remedies provisions of the Policy, limits an arbitrator to two possible remedies if a complaint is successful in establishing grounds for domain name cancellation–either cancellation of the registration or its transfer to the complainant. The former is achieved by way of a cancellation order, which extinguishes the respondent’s registration of the domain name, and the latter by a transfer order that transfers the registration to the complainant. An arbitrator is therefore not empowered to impose any other remedy, such as directing the respondent to remove the infringing use from the website but retain ownership of the domain name, or any other remedy tailored to the circumstances of the case.

No damages, no injunction. 

This is the most important distinction for the complainant, for it means that an arbitrator cannot award damages suffered by the complainant as a result of the wrongful registration. By the same token, an injunction cannot be issued by the arbitrator to prevent further infringements by the respondent beyond the use of the domain name. A complainant who has suffered loss or damage as a result of the respondent’s conduct is not entitled to seek redress under INDRP, but would have to do so by way of a civil suit for passing off or trademark infringement under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. That is why the two jurisdictions are not entirely consistent with each other so far as the remedies are concerned, and there is no conflict between them: a complainant may seek the remedies available under both INDRP and the civil law.

Costs

Under INDRP, neither the respondent nor the petitioner is entitled to recover the costs incurred in relation to the proceedings, apart from the costs of NIXI charges payable by the petitioner.

Binding of the parties and the appeal. 

The award made by the arbitrator is binding upon the parties to the dispute in accordance with Rule 8 of the INDRP Rules of Procedure. In practice, this means that once an award has been passed, the disputed domain is placed on hold for a period of 90 days by NIXI, during which time either party may file an application to set aside the award before the court. It is helpful to remember that proceedings before the arbitrator are governed by the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, since this determines the procedures for challenging an award. In general, no court shall entertain any challenge to an award except by way of an application to the court under Section 34 of the said Act. The grounds for doing so are also contained in Section 34, which include amongst other things, that the award is in conflict with the public policy of India, or the arbitrator had acted ultra vires the arbitration agreement. The two cases heard by the Delhi High Court in 2026 referred to in Section 5  are examples of such Section 34 applications: in both cases, the unsuccessful petitioner applied to the Delhi High Court under Section 34 for setting aside the award.

Practical implications. 

Given the limited remedies available under INDRP, and those circumstances in which a Section 34 challenge to an award is justiciable, it is important for a petitioner to understand that an arbitration under INDRP is not a preliminary contest but rather in many ways the culmination of extended litigation, and should be treated as such.

Practical Tips for Brand Owners

The preceding observations suggest a few practical pointers that could make an INDRP complaint more effective, given the increased evidentiary hurdles imposed by the Delhi High Court in the 2026 orders:

Register defensively, and register early. 

The easiest way to avoid a dispute altogether is to defensively register – that is, register .in and .co.in domains for trademarks that one intends to use, including possible misspellings or alternative spellings of a brand’s name, prior to any dispute arising. In every case mentioned in this article – Yahoo!, Rediff, Tata Sons, Maruti Suzuki, Oracle, Microsoft – the respondent had registered a domain that the complainant did not have a defensive registration for, and INDRP and/or civil litigation were used as post-registration remedies. It is far easier and cheaper to register defensively than to litigate.

Register the trademark before using it in a complaint. 

While Satyam Infoway makes it clear that passing off rights may be established even if a mark is not formally registered, both a legal and an INDRP complaint are made significantly easier if the complainant has registered the trademark. A registered trademark reduces a complainant’s evidentiary burden, as the respondent must answer not only the allegations of passing off but also the status of a registered trademark.

Build the record of bad faith before filing the complaint, rather than after. 

The observations in Oracle v. CIS IT Solutions and the 2026 Microsoft order demonstrate that an arbitral tribunal – and by extension, the Delhi High Court – is now looking for more than mere confusion as evidence of bad faith. Instead, a complainant should file with the tribunal screenshots of the respondent’s communications with users, if any (to establish the demand price and compare it to the respondent’s out-of-pocket expenses), similar domains held by the respondent and/or any other evidence of uniformity of conduct, the contents of the accused domain (including any pay-per-click links to the complainant), etc. In other words, any evidence that could help determine the reason for registration and whether that reason was bad faith should be presented to the tribunal. Screenshots, archives of WHOIS information, and exchanges with the respondent are all useful in building such a case – and will assist in persuading the tribunal that bad faith really is the reason for registration.

When choosing between remedies, consider what the complainant really wants. 

An INDRP complaint is relatively quick and inexpensive, but it only allows a complainant to transfer or cancel a domain; it does not provide any compensation for damages to the complainant’s reputation or goodwill nor does it grant an injunction. A civil proceeding, meanwhile, can award compensation for damages as well as a broader range of injunctive relief. If the complainant’s primary concern is reputation damage and/or the respondent is engaging in a larger pattern of infringement, it is wise to consider a civil proceeding under the Trade Marks Act independently or concurrently with an INDRP complaint. At the same time, it is important to remember that INDRP allows for multiple proceedings concerning different domains but requires that they be filed separately: if a respondent has registered multiple infringing domains, it is more cost-effective to file a single civil suit.

Treat an INDRP win as provisional until the 90-day window closes.

Do not consider an INDRP remedy to be final until the 90-day period following the order has passed. Because an adverse party may always file a Section 34 application to set aside the award before the High Court having jurisdiction within 90 days of the order, and because the courts have expressed a willingness (in both Oracle and the 2026 Microsoft order) to review the tribunal’s reasoning on bad faith, the complainant should not consider an INDRP order to be entirely final until this period has expired and any such application has been decided. 

Keep monitoring after a win. 

While transferring or deleting an offending domain is a valuable remedy, it does not prevent the same respondent or a different one from registering another infringing domain. As such, a complainant should continue to monitor for such domains even after a successful INDRP proceeding.

Conclusion

India offers two distinct but closely related approaches to domain name disputes which evolved in somewhat surprising order. Courts led the way, interpreting the law of passing off to apply to domain names in cases such as Yahoo! Inc. v. Akash Arora (Delhi High Court, 1999) and most recently in the Supreme Court decision regarding Satyam Infoway. This has since been supplemented by the INDRP policy, which came into force in 2005. However, this was not an attempt to replace the judicial passing off actions. On the contrary, INDRP seeks to provide brand owners with a quicker, cheaper alternative to the one remedy available in passing off litigation: recovery of the disputed domain name.

That division of labour still holds. INDRP is the venue of choice to pursue transfer or cancellation and the evidence in aid of bad-faith finding is conclusive but as Oracle v. CIS IT Solutions and Pathan Imrankhan Zafarullakhan v. Microsoft demonstrate, Delhi High Court will not accept trademark similarity as a proxy to establish bad faith on either side of the ledger. Injunctions remain the preserve of civil proceedings and stay the moment damage beyond that caused by loss of a particular domain is in contemplation.

For the advice of counsel to a brand owner, the question is rarely INDRP or litigation. It is often supported by the facts, and whether the bad faith record is sufficient to survive a court that is willing to look beyond the similarity and ask what the registrant was up to.

Also Read: Semiconductor Layout Design in India: Protection and Registry Guide

References 

Written by

Kriya Shah Pankaj

Final year B.A., LL.B. Student

Indian IP Law Trademark Patent Copyright

Currently pursuing her fifth year of B.A., LL.B. at Kes Shri J.P. Law College, Mumbai University. Her primary areas of interest are Intellectual Property Law, Corporate Law, and Data Privacy. She has developed skills in legal research, case analysis, legal drafting, and writing on contemporary legal issues, with a particular interest in copyright and emerging areas of intellectual property.

Connect with the author

Continue reading