Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Manmohan Singh, J.
Appellants: Mr. Arun Jaitley
Vs.
Respondent: Network Solutions Private Limited and Ors.
CS(OS) 1745/2009 and I.A. No. 11943/2009 and 17485/2010
Decided On: 04.07.2011
DOMAIN NAME - SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION - MISUSE AND IMMEDIATE TRANSFER - ARUNJAITLEY.COM - WELL KNOWN PERSONAL NAME - DOMAIN NAME POLICY - ICANN POLICY - UDRP POLICY - PASSING OFF - PERSONAL NAME - DOMAIN NAME REGISTRATION - MALA FIDE REGISTRATION - CYBER SQUATTING - PUNATIVE DAMAGES.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff, a prominent leader of the Bhartiya Janata Party, sought a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from misusing and immediately transferring the domain name www.arunjaitley.com. The domain name had expired and was pending deletion. The defendants, instead of deleting the domain name, transferred it to a third party, Portfolio Brains LLC, which was an auction site for domain names. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants' actions were mala fide and intended to make a monetary gain by collecting sums of money for the domain name.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the domain name www.arunjaitley.com was a well-known personal name and that the plaintiff had a right to use it. The court also held that the defendants' actions in transferring the domain name to a third party were mala fide and in violation of the ICANN and UDRP policies. The court further held that the defendants were liable for cyber squatting and awarded punitive damages to the plaintiff.
Issues: 1. Whether the domain name www.arunjaitley.com was a well-known personal name and whether the plaintiff had a right to use it? 2. Whether the defendants' actions in transferring the domain name to a third party were mala fide and in violation of the ICANN and UDRP policies? 3. Whether the defendants were liable for cyber squatting?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the domain name www.arunjaitley.com was a well-known personal name and that the plaintiff had a right to use it. The court reasoned that the plaintiff was a prominent leader of the Bhartiya Janata Party, a member of Parliament, and a former Union Minister. The court also noted that the plaintiff's name had been associated with the domain name for many years. 2. The court held that the defendants' actions in transferring the domain name to a third party were mala fide and in violation of the ICANN and UDRP policies. The court reasoned that the defendants had been put on notice of the plaintiff's rights to the domain name and that they had failed to take any steps to protect those rights. The court also noted that the defendants had transferred the domain name to a third party that was an auction site for domain names, which suggested that the defendants were attempting to profit from the sale of the domain name. 3. The court held that the defendants were liable for cyber squatting. The court reasoned that the defendants had registered the domain name in bad faith and that they had used it to attract internet users to their website for commercial gain.
Final Decision: The court granted a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from using, promoting, advertising, or retaining the domain name www.arunjaitley.com. The court also ordered the defendants to transfer the domain name to the plaintiff and to pay punitive damages to the plaintiff in the amount of Rs. 5 lakhs.
Manmohan Singh, J.
1. The Plaintiff Mr. Arun Jaitley has filed the present suit for permanent injunction restraining the Defendants from misuse and immediate transfer of domain name WWW. ARUNJAITLEY.COM.
2. The name of Defendant No. 1 Network Solutions Private Limited was deleted vide order dated 15.04.2009. Amended memo of parties is already filed on record and Defendant Nos. 2 to 4 have been numbered as Defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 respectively. Mr C.M. Lall is appearing on behalf of Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 as per amended memo of parties. The Defendant No. 3 namely Portfolio Brains LLC was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 06.01.2010.
3. When the suit along with interim application was listed, the court passed the interim order in favour of the Plaintiff. The operative portion of the interim order passed is as under:
It is directed that till the next date of hearing the Defendant No. 3, Portfolio Brains LLC or its principal officers, servants, agents or anyone who may be acting for and for and on its behalf, shall not in any manner advertise the domain name arunjaitley.com, use the said domain name for auction purposes or for any other purpose. Defendant No. 3 is restrained from transferring, alienating or offering for sale the said domain name "arunjaitley.com" to any third party and from creating any third party interest in the said domain name "arunjaitley.com?. Defendant No. 3 is directed to maintain status quo in relation to the said domain name. This is subject to the Plaintiff complying with the requirements of Order XXXIX Rule 3 Code of Civil Procedure within one week.
4. The matter was listed before the court on 25.04.2011 for consideration of I.A. No. 11943/2009 (Order 39 Rule 1&2 read with Section 151 Code of Civil Procedure) and I.A. No. 17485/2010 (Order 1 Rule 1 CPC). Both the parties have given their consent if the main suit along with these applications be also decided.
5. Before considering these pending applications, I feel it is necessary to refer the facts which reads as under:
(i) The Plaintiff is a prominent leader of the Bhartiya Janata Party which is currently the largest opposition party in India and is the leader of Opposition in the Rajya Sabha. The Plaintiff has been a Member of Parliament for the last ten years. He was a prominent leader of a movement against corruption launched in the year 1973 by Late Shri Jai Prakash Narayan. He was the Convenor of the National Committee for Students and Youth Organization appointed by Late Shri Jai Prakash Narayan.
(ii) The Plaintiff was a delegate on behalf of the Government of India to the United Nations General Assembly session in June, 1998 where the Declaration on laws relating to Drugs and Money Laundering was approved. The Plaintiff was appointed as the Minister of State for Information and Broadcasting (Independent Charge) in 1999. In the year 2000, the Plaintiff was also appointed as the Minister of State for Disinvestment to give effect to the policy of disinvestments under the World Trade Organization (WTO) regime and was also given the additional charge of the Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs and was elevated to rank of a Cabinet Minister on 7th November, 2000 with the Law, Justice & Company Affairs under his charge and also given the charge of the Ministry of Shipping.
(iii) Thereafter the Plaintiff demitted the office to join the Bhartiya Janta Party as its Secretary General and also as its national spokesman in the year 2001. In the year 2003, the Plaintiff again became the Union Cabinet Minister as the Minister of Commerce & Industry and Law & Justice before rejoining the Bhartiya Janata Party as its General Secretary.
(iv) The name "ARUN JAITLEY", being the personal name of the Plaintiff, immediately gets associated with the Plaintiff and no one else. The Plaintiff's name carries enormous goodwill and reputation and is exclusively associated with the Plaintiff. the Plaintiff is a household name not only in India but also globally for
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
