Saturday 30 April 2011

Training of Judicial Officers Of India

Judges training in India is a very important aspect of a sound judicial system. If judges are not properly trained and skilled, it may adversely affect the justice delivery system of a nation. In fact, a trained and sensitive judiciary can greatly expand the reach of access to justice to needy population.

Judges in India need to upgrade their skill from time to time. Special skill development initiatives must be undertaken in India for Indian judiciary. This is more so regarding e-courts skill development that is almost missing in India.

E-courts in India can make Indian judicial system more transparent and user friendly. Although e-courts project of India has been launched as a mission mode project under the national e-governance plan (NEGP) of India, it has failed to materialise so far. Despite spending crores of money, we are still waiting for the establishment of first e-court of India. Due to absence of e-courts skill the e-court project has still not been materialised.

Legal and Judicial Fraternity of India must be well aware of Scientific Concepts like Cyber Law, Cyber Forensics, Digital Evidencing, E-Discovery, E-Courts, Online Dispute Resolution, etc, says Praveen Dalal, managing partner of New Delhi based law firm Perry4Law and CEO of Perry4Law Techno Legal Base (PTLB). This requires good and qualitative Training and Skill Development Courses, suggests Dalal.

PTLB is providing various techno legal trainings and skill development courses to lawyers, judges, police officers, corporate executives, etc. PTLB is also providing techno legal training and education to judges in India and worldwide. PTLB is also providing techno legal trainings in India to lawyers. Even online training of judges in India is also provided by PTLB. Law ministry of India must take active help of institutions like PTLB for its various projects.

Friday 29 April 2011

Cyber Law Skill Development In India By PTLB

In this guest column, Perry4Law Techno Legal Base (PTLB) has shared the details about its cyber law skill development initiatives. Cyber law skill development in India has still to pick pace. Cyber law skill development is also necessary these days due to growing regulatory demands for cyber due diligence. The cyber law skill development initiatives of PTLB can help all the stakeholders to meet various regulatory compliances and due diligence requirements. Read for further details and procedure to enroll for the same.

Cyber Law of India is incorporated in the Indian Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act 2000). It has been amended through the Information Technology Amendment Act, 2008 (IT Act, 2008). With this amendment, Cyber Law of India has become more onerous and complicated.

Stakeholders like Police, Lawyers, Judges, Corporate Executives, etc must be well aware of the Cyber Law of India. They require good and qualitative Cyber law Training and Skill Development in India. At Perry4Law and PTLB we ensure world class Techno Legal Trainings and Cyber Law Skill Development. Besides, Skill Development for other Technology Laws is also taken care of by Perry4Law and PTLB.

Perry4Law and PTLB are also in the process of writing the first and exclusive techno legal Cyber Crime Investigation Manual of India. The manual is in the final phase of preparation and it may be available to Governmental Departments and General Public after few months. The Manual is a “Must Have Guide” for Law Enforcement Agencies, Intelligence Agencies, Government Departments, Home Ministry of India, etc. In short, it would greatly help in enhancing the Cyber Crime Investigation Capabilities in India.

Cyber Due Diligence in India also requires good knowledge of Cyber Law of India. There are many Due Diligence Requirements under the Cyber Law of India that various stakeholders have to comply. Another area that requires Cyber Law Skill Development is the requirement for Cyber Due Diligence for Banks in India. In fact, to ensure proper cyber security of banking transactions and to comply with the IT Act 2000 cyber due diligence requirements, all banks now would have to create a position of Chief Information Officers (CIOs) as well as Steering Committees on Information Security at the board level at the earliest.

This is the recent direction of Reserve Bank of India (RBI) that all banks must comply with. At PTLB we provided Cyber Law Trainings to prospective CIOs and Steering Committee Members. The best part is that PTLB is the exclusive Techno Legal Online Skill Development Initiative of India and world wide. In short, the Cyber Law Skill Development in India is a major career area that must be taken seriously.

Application form for the enrollment to various Skill Development Courses, Internships and Trainings of PTLB can be downloaded from here and more details about the courses of PTLB can be found here. For all those who wish to have partnership or collaboration with PTLB, they can contact us with their detailed proposals covering the terms and conditions in details.

Thursday 28 April 2011

Online Skill Development In India By PTLB

In this guest column, Perry4Law Techno Legal Base (PTLB) is explaining about the online techno legal skill development initiative managed by it. This is the exclusive techno legal online skill development initiative of India.

Skill development in India is a major policy decision these days. India has realised the importance of a skilled and well trained workforce and this has inspired it to shift its stand from mere academic education to vocational and professional education in India. Now more emphasis has been given to technical education and skill development in India.

India is also facing a challenge of keeping the maximum population within the reach of its skill development programmes. This cannot be achieved until online education and e-learning is used in India. However, there are very few qualitative online skill development institutions in India.

We at Perry4Law and Perry4Law Techno Legal Base (PTLB) are providing exclusive Online Techno Legal Skill Development in India in fields like Cyber Law, Cyber Security, Cyber Forensics, Digital Evidencing, E-Discovery, Techno Legal LPO and KPO, E-Courts, E-Governance, Electronic Services Delivery, National E-Governance Plan (NEGP), Lawyers and Judges Training, ODR, etc.

Through world class online tutorials and trainings, good and qualitative techno legal skill development education is provided to every corner of India and world wide. These skill development courses, trainings and education are available to police officers, lawyers, judges, corporate executives, professionals, etc. There is no need to even leave the premises where the individual is working or residing. Everything can be done in an online environment.

Application form for the enrollment to various courses, internships and trainings of PTLB can be downloaded from here and more details about the courses of PTLB can be found here.

For all those who wish to have partnership or collaboration with PTLB, they can contact us with their detailed proposals covering the terms and conditions in details.

Saturday 23 April 2011

E-Discovery And Litigation Services In India

Electronic discovery plays a major role in pre litigation and litigation phases. For pre litigation phase e-discovery helps in ascertaining the sources and causes of various irregularities and frauds. Once these irregularities and frauds have been detected, the management of an organisation can decide to pursue the same through litigation.

E-discovery and litigation services are also becoming an essential part of legal process outsourcing (LPO) and knowledge process outsourcing (KPO) these days. However, it requires good quality of Techno Legal Expertise to perform E-Discovery in a Legally Sustainable Manner, says Praveen Dalal, managing partner of New Delhi based law firm Perry4Law and leading techno legal expert of India. The LPO and KPO Providers of India must be Innovative in order to get maximum benefits out of this upcoming field, says Dalal.

E-discovery is essentially techno legal in nature. The person doing e-discovery must be aware of both technical and legal aspects of e-discovery. This is necessary so that electronic evidence can be acquired in a forensically sound manner. If E-Discovery is not done in a proper manner, it would be “Inadmissible” in a Court of Law, informs Dalal.

E-discovery in India has yet to take a shape. For instance, Perry4Law and Perry4Law Techno Legal Base (PTLB) are managing the exclusive techno legal Digital Evidencing and E-Discovery Centre of India. The centre is managing issues like innovative digital evidence LPO and KPO and other techno legal digital evidencing and e-discovery related issues. Perry4Law and PTLB are also the exclusive citizens to government (C2G) LPO and KPO providers in India.

We have to train police officers, lawyer, judges etc with suitable techno legal trainings so that e-discovery and digital evidencing can grow in India. Organisations like Perry4Law and PTLB can play a decisive role in this regard.

Wednesday 20 April 2011

Knowledge Process Outsourcing In India

Till now the terms legal process outsourcing in India (LPO in India) and knowledge process outsourcing in India (KPO in India) are very clear for Indian legal, para legal and allied service providers. LPO and KPO services of India are used by both national and international companies, firms and organisations to reduce costs and improve efficiency.

LPO and KPO in India are witnessing a tremendous growth. Indian LPO and KPO service providers are extending their services to foreign law firms in multi billion dollars cases. Even high profile cases are often referred to India for preliminary research and case briefing.

While these areas are well known there are many areas that are still unexplored by Indian LPO and KPO services providers. This is more so regarding KPO services as they require domain specific and highly specialised acumen. One such are pertains to techno legal and technology related KPO.

The leading LPO and KPO service provider in India Perry4Law has taken LPO and KPO to the next level of outsourcing revolution. Perry4Law is the best Techno-Legal LPO and KPO Service Provider of the World. It has domain specific and highly specialised techno-legal LPO and KPO expertise that others are struggling even to understand. Till now only global leaders like Perry4Law alone is providing techno-legal LPO/KPO services in India. This may be so because techno-legal LPO and KPO requires domain specific and highly specialised knowledge about both technology and law that very few can possess.

For instance, if an assignment pertaining to cyber forensics or cyber security is forwarded to India, there are very few firms like Perry4Law that can manage the same. Similarly, issues like e-discovery in India are also managed by law firms like Perry4Law alone.

These techno legal KPO services of Perry4Law are provided by world renowned techno legal segment of Perry4Law known as Perry4Law Techno Legal Base (PTLB). The existing LPO and KPO firms and organisation must upgrade their work structure and manpower to meet this future requirement. To consolidate the LPO and KPO related information of Perry4Law and PTLB, a Blog has been created by them.

Another point that must be kept in mind by the LPO and KPO providers in India is that they may also face stiff competition from other Asian countries. In order to remain the World leader and first place for LPO and KPO business, Indian LPO and KPO providers must also enhance their research skills.

KPO is a very different game and the same must not be considered as mere extension of LPO. KPO requires domain specific and highly specialised services that cannot be managed in the absence of adequate talent and expertise. Realising this fact PTLB has started techno-legal training for law graduates, lawyers, etc. Similarly, Perry4Law Techno-Legal ICT Training Centre (PTLITC) would provide higher level techno-legal training to all stakeholders.

LPO and KPO services in India are going to stay but how long and up to what extent depends upon the LPO/KPO service providers of India. Further, with the use of information and communication technology, newer frontiers of LPO and KPO may be seen in future. LPO and KPO providers of India must be well prepared to not only meet the future challenges but also to encash future opportunities. KPO has a lot to offer to India only if the KPO providers of India are able to grasp the same.

Monday 18 April 2011

E-Voting Machines And System Of India

Electronic voting using electronic voting machines (EVMs) have never been a smooth exercise in India. Cyber security concerns of the e-voting machines of India have been frequently raised by many experts of India. Thus, e-voting in India never found a clean and clear acceptance despite the reluctance of the election commission of India.

Although EVMs have many advantages over the traditional paper based voting system yet these advantages are useless if EVMs can be abused and the election results can be manipulated.

According to Praveen Dalal, managing partner of New Delhi based law firm Perry4Law and the leading techno-legal expert of India, E-Voting in India must be accompanied by proper plan and adequate Information and Communication Technology Infrastructure. At the same time special emphasis must be given to the Cyber Security aspect of E-Voting Mechanism in India. There is no doubt that E-Voting Machines in India can be “Manipulated” to adversely affect the end results, says Dalal.

While the use of E-Voting may help expanding the voting community yet there must be a suitable Policy and Regulation to prevent and remedy “Misuses” arising out of such E-Voting System, says Dalal. The crucial question is what if E-Voting is proved to be tainted subsequently after Cyber Forensics appraisal and a Government has been formed on the basis of that voting? Will the Election Commission declare such elections null and void? Will the President of India declare a re-election? Will the Supreme Court of India take cognisance of this fact, asks Praveen Dalal.

However, election commission of India is not very impressed by the claims of manipulations of EVMs in India. In a surprising and welcome move, the state election commission of Mumbai has decided to take the proper recourse. The state election commission is planning to use e-voting in the upcoming civic elections in Mumbai next year. The commission has decided to offer Rs 10 lakh to anyone who can hack their e-voting system.

Accordingly, once the software is created, ethical hackers will be invited to test it. The money would have to be paid by the consultant who would develop software for the commission. In case someone succeeds in hacking the e-voting machine, the consultant will have to bear the cost and the software will have to be reworked.

This sort of action was expected from the election commission of India that has not been very active in this regard. Let this incidence be an example for all concerned.

Thursday 14 April 2011

Online Courts In India

Information and communication technology (ICT) has changed the way legal and judicial systems are operating world wide. Even law firms are adopting technology for better and efficient legal functions. Legal management system in India is developing along with use of ICT for judicial purposes in India.

Online courts in India are part and parcel of the e-courts project of India. E-courts project of India is again a part of the national e-governance plan (NEGP) of India. Under the NEGP scheme, courts of India are required to be upgraded and made compatible with the use of ICT.

So what is the status of online courts in India? According to Praveen Dalal, managing partner of New Delhi base techno legal ICT law firm Perry4Law and leading techno legal expert of India, Online Courts in India have still to see the light of the day. India is still at the first stage of Computerisation of some of the aspects of Courts. Full fledged E-Filling, Submission of Plaints and Documents Online, Online Evidence Producing, etc are still missing, informs Dalal.

Online courts in India could not be established as there is lack of planning and foresight. The present e-court infrastructure of India is not in good shape and it urgently requires rejuvenation. Another factor going against the establishment of online courts in India is the fact that we do not have a legal enablement of ICT systems in India. Till a legal framework conducive for techno legal development of Indian judiciary is not established, legal and judicial systems of India have little incentives to adopt technology.

Further, online courts in India cannot be established till we have techno legal expertise to establish, maintain and upgrade court’s infrastructure. We have a single and exclusive techno legal online courts training and consultancy centre of India. The centre provides techno legal assistance for establishment, maintenance and upgradation of e-courts infrastructure all over the world.

The essential parameters for the establishment of online courts in India have not yet been met. The moment e-filing, presentation, contest and adjudication of the cases in an online environment would start, India would surely be capable of establishing online courts. In the absence of these capabilities, we have to wait for few more years to get speedier justice in India.

Skill Development In India Is Urgently Needed

Skill development is a very crucial area that has recently received attention of Indian government. Along with industry players, Indian government has been trying to inculcate skill among professionals graduating from vocational, professional and academic streams.

Many experts have already mentioned that technical education and skill development in India cannot be segregated. Many experts have even suggested that the future of professionals would lie in duality and multi disciplinary approach rather than a single field.

For instance, legal professionals are now increasingly looking upon computer related knowledge as areas like cyber law, cyber forensics, e-commerce, e-governance, etc have been associated with legal policies and issues. Essentially, it means legal professionals must have techno legal skills in order to compete in this competitive environment.

A landmark development in this regard occurred when India got techno legal education boost. Perry4Law Techno Legal Base (PTLB) launched many online techno legal education and training courses for police officers, judges, lawyers, computer science professionals, management professionals, corporate executives, etc.

The major focus of these techno legal educational and training courses of PTLB is to ensure cyber skills development in India. Presently, India is not paying enough attention towards techno legal skill development.

Similarly, the legal and judicial fraternity of India needs scientific knowledge in order to perform their functions more appropriately. The fields like cyber law are posing trouble to judges and lawyer alike. Even law enforcement agencies of India find it really difficult to deal with cyber crimes. Law Minister Veerappa Moily must urgently work in this direction as without adequate skill development, legal and judicial reforms cannot be achieved in India.

Tuesday 12 April 2011

Indian Computer Security Policy Is Required

Computer security in India is not taken seriously either by the individuals or by the government departments. Even if some people think about computer security, it is mostly confined to installing an anti virus and at most a firewall. Further, even anti virus software are not regularly updated and this results in an outdated virus definition and signatures.

We also have no cyber law policy in India, cyber crime policy in India, national cyber security policy in India, telecom security policy in India, encryption policy of India and so on. So on the policy front, India has performed extremely poor. Any field that is not supported by any policy or strategy is bound to fail and computer security in India is one such area.

National Security Policy of India is urgently required and Computer Security Policy of India must be an essential part of the same, says Praveen Dalal, managing partner of New Delhi based Law Firm Perry4Law and leading techno legal expert of India. Increasing Computer Security Readiness with Adaptive Threat Management is need of the hour, suggests Dalal. Further, Measurement of ICT Resilience and Robustness on regular basis is also required, suggests Dalal.

Even computer security research and development in India is lacking. We have a single and exclusive techno legal computer security research, training and education institution of India. The same is managed by Perry4Law and Perry4Law Techno Legal Base (PTLB). It is managing issues like cyber law, computer security, cyber war, cyber espionage, cyber forensics, etc.

A sound and effective computer security policy of India requires dedicated and committed efforts. Presently, we have neither computer security laws in India nor effective mechanisms to safeguard our cyberspace from cyber attacks. India is facing growing threats of cyber attacks and its cyberspace is highly vulnerable.

Even issues like cyber terrorism in India, cyber espionage in India, critical infrastructure protection in India, critical information infrastructure protection in India, etc have not received attention of Indian government. The national ICT crisis management plan of India is still missing. In fact, Indian crisis management plan for cyber attacks and cyber terrorism is still not ready. India needs to plug in these crucial computer security gaps as soon as possible.

Monday 11 April 2011

E-Courts In India

An electronic court (e-courts) is the process where the traditional courts are made more effective and speedier through the use of information and communication technology (ICT). From filing of the case to its final adjudication, all is done in an online environment.

E-courts are different from computerised courts that merely computerise few traditional litigation systems, says Praveen Dalal, managing partner of New Delhi based law firm Perry4Law and leading techno legal expert of India. For instance, if cases are filed on compact disks (CDs) instead of in paper based file format, it does not make it a part of e-courts process. It is merely a computerisation process as one has to still approach the court premises in order to deliver the CDs or other electronic media, explains Dalal.

Till the month of April 2011, we are still waiting for the establishment of first e-court of India. Although some computerisation initiatives have been undertaken in India yet none of them either independently or collectively are sufficient to establish even a single e-court in India. The truth is that e-courts in India are still an unfulfilled dream.

E-courts project of India has not been able to be successfully transformed into a judicial reform initiative. At the institutional level, e-court project is bound to fails as there is no techno legal expertise present there. This is the reason why despite the national e-governance plan (NEGP) of India being launched, it has largely remained a failure to bring legal enablement of ICT systems in India.

For instance, India has a single techno legal e-courts research, training and consultancy centre that is managed by Perry4Law Techno Legal Base (PTLB). India needs more such techno legal e-courts centers so that e-court project of India may be successful.

Till now the e-court centre of PTLB is not extending its expertise to the e-courts project of India.Hopefully, Supreme Court of India and Ministry of Law and Justice would consider taking techno legal services of PTLB and similar institutions so that e-courts may see the light of the day.

Sunday 10 April 2011

Jan Lokpal Bill Of India 2011

India has been undergoing a renaissance phase where corruption is the death cause. With the proposed draft Jan Lokpal Bill of India 2011, the ball has been start rolling. However, there are still many areas like Whistleblower Protection Law in India that have to be addressed by the newly constituted joint drafting committee.

With the issuance of official gazette notification by ministry of law and justice, the joint drafting committee to prepare draft of the Lokpal Bill has been now officially constituted. However, before the good work has been started, allegations of nepotism have already surfaced pertaining to the “constitution” of the Committee.

Of course, there are others also that find this constitution acceptable for the larger interest of India. The constitution of the Joint Drafting Committee is a good step in the right direction, says Praveen Dalal, a Supreme Court Lawyer and managing member of India’s first RTI Helpdesk. Although the Committee has initially taken ten Members yet other Members can be, and would be, Co-Opted by the Committee in due course of time, informs Dalal.

The best part of this Notification is that it is flexible as it allows the Committee to follow its “Own Procedure”. Thus, expert opinion of others can also be taken and they can be a part of the same as the “Invitee Members” of the Committee, informs Dalal.

So we must not bother much with the constitution of the Committee and proceed further. We must focus more upon the draft Lokpal Bill 2011 that can become an effective tool to fight corruption in India. The Committee can anytime seek help of other legal experts and civil liberty activists during its deliberation. For the time being, let us start the ball rolling, suggests Dalal.

We must realise that the Lokpal Bill has been drafted for more than 42 years by Indian Government and it has failed to become an applicable law till now, informs Dalal. The first Lokpal Bill was passed in the 4th Lok Sabha in 1969 but could not get through in the Rajya Sabha. Subsequently, Lokpal bills were introduced in 1971, 1977, 1985, 1989, 1996, 1998, 2001, 2005 and in 2008.

Let us at least start working in this direction. Further, merely drafting a Bill would not serve the purpose as it must also be made an enforceable law within a stipulated and fixed time, suggest Dalal. We have to generate a “wider consensus” in order to force Indian government to enact and make an enforceable Lokpal Act, 2011 till the end of this year, suggests Dalal.

It is high time for us to unite and fight for the common cause. There should not be any scope for internal fighting and disagreements. Already, it has taken too much time and anti corruption measures are need of the hour. Let us hope for the best in this regard.

Friday 8 April 2011

Encryption Policy Of India

Use of encryption has many benefits. From ensuring the security and integrity of electronic transactions, encryption also helps in avoiding illegal cell phone tapping and e-surveillance by private persons that is rampant in India.

There are no privacy laws in India and data protection laws in India. This means that sensitive and personal data is open for all sorts of abuses. For example, telemarketing woes in India are well known where privacy is openly and blatantly violated by telemarketing companies.

Similarly, data stealing through cyber espionage is well known in India. With a cyber criminal friendly cyber law of India, it is very difficult to punish the cyber criminals who engage in trans border cyber espionage.

Encryption has also become essential to defeat the illegal and unconstitutional electronic sniffing and e-surveillance approach of India. We have no lawful interception law in India and telephone tapping in India is done in an unconstitutional manner.

Indian government is pressuring companies like Skype, Google/Gmail, Research in Motion (RIM) Blackberry, etc for practically using no encryption services for their communications. For instance, India is pressurising Blackberry for providing unencrypted e-mail and telecom communications in India. By threatening to ban Blackberry services in India, the government has already obtained access to Blackberry’s messenger services. Now India is forcing the telecom service providers of India to drop Blackberry’s services if it does not provide free and unencrypted access to its services in India.

Encryption policy is also important for ensuring strong and effective telecom policy of India. However, encryption is an unresolved enigma in India. We have no encryption laws in India and despite the suggestions of many experts’ encryption laws and regulations in India are still missing.

India is compromising the Mobile Security of India and Mobile Governance in India by insisting upon a Weak Encryption Infrastructure, says Praveen Dalal, managing partner of New Delhi based law firm Perry4Law and leading techno legal expert of India. Mobile Cyber Security in India is not upto the mark and unencrypted communication would further increase the risks, claims Dalal. New Telecom Policy of India 2011 is in pipeline and it would be a good idea if Mobile Security Policy of India is also made a part of the same, suggests Dalal. The proposed Telecom Security Council of India can take this issue when constituted, suggests Dalal.

Let us hope that Indian government would consider and accept the suggestions of experts and would come up with a sound and effective encryption policy of India.

Thursday 7 April 2011

National Cyber Security Policy Of India

Cyber law of India is weak and so is cyber security of India. In fact, cyber security of India is in poor state. We have no cyber security strategy of India and this is resulting in a weak and vulnerable cyber security of India. India is facing serious cyber threats and its cyberspace is not at all secure. Cyber terrorism against India is now a well known fact and cyber espionage against India is even admitted by Indian government. Even defence forces of India need to upgrade their cyber security capabilities. We also have negligible cyber forensics capabilities in India and cyber skills development in India is the need of the hour.

Cyber terrorism in India, cyber crimes and cyber attacks against India are increasing because we have no national security policy of India. Further, we also have no national security an ICT policy of India. Obviously national cyber security in India is not upto the mark in the absence of networks security in India.

National Security Policy of India is urgently required and Cyber Security Policy of India must be an essential part of the same, says Praveen Dalal, managing partner of New Delhi based Law Firm Perry4Law and leading techno legal expert of India. Increasing Cyber Security Readiness with Adaptive Threat Management is need of the hour, suggests Dalal. Further, Measurement of ICT Resilience and Robustness on regular basis is also required, suggests Dalal.

Even cyber security research and development in India is lacking. We have a single and exclusive techno legal cyber security research, training and education institution of India. The same is managed by Perry4Law and Perry4Law Techno Legal Base (PTLB). It is managing issues like cyber law, cyber security, cyber war, cyber espionage, cyber forensics, etc.

In order to ensure strong cyber security, Indian cyber security policy must be formulated as soon as possible. Critical infrastructure protection in India and Critical ICT infrastructure protection in India must be an integral part of the same. Further, national ICT crisis management plan of India must also be formulated. Indian crisis management plan for cyber attacks and cyber terrorism is still not ready and the same must formulated immediately.

Further, Cyber law policy of India and cyber crime policy of India must also be formulated. Data security and cyber security laws in India are also required. Presently, we have no data security, data protection, privacy protection and cyber security laws in India. Cyber terrorism preparedness in India must also be made part of the homeland security of India. In short, cyber security policy is needed in India and it cannot be postponed any more. The sooner it is formulated the better it would for the national interest of India.

Wednesday 6 April 2011

Cyber Forensics Courses In India

Cyber forensics in India has been increasingly seen as a career option. With increasing use of information and communication technology (ICT) in India and increasing cyber crimes, demand for cyber forensics experts in India is going to increase.

For instance, it took central bureau of investigation (CBI) and Indian computer emergency response team (CERT-In) more than four months to trace even the basic level information like Internet protocol address. CBI and CERT-In were investigating the website defacement of CBI claimed to be done by cyber army of Pakistan.

The chances of catching the culprits are very dim, claims Praveen Dalal, managing partner of New Delhi base techno legal firm Perry4Law and leading techno legal expert of India. This is because of two reasons. Firstly, it has been more than Four Months since the attack took place. Till now most of the Logs would have been either deleted, tampered with or modified, informs Dalal. Secondly, there are great chances that Insecure Wireless Connection must have been used for committing this attack, informs Dalal. This makes it next to impossible to detect the true identity of the attacker after this long delay, claims Dalal.

This shows India is not ready for the growing demands of cyberspace that is under constant cyber attacks. India is under constant cyber threats and cyber terrorism attacks. Further, cyber security of India is also not upto the mark. Even there are no standards for measurement of ICT resilience and robustness in India.

While the cyber attacks are increasing in India yet the professionals to tackle the same are missing. At this stage the importance of techno legal research, training and educational centre of Perry4Law Techno Legal Base (PTLB) assumes significance. PTLB is managing the exclusive techno legal cyber forensics training and education centre of India.

PTLB and its cyber forensics centre are providing techno legal cyber forensics courses in India. Further, they are also providing domain specific cyber forensics training in India. This is done through the online platform of PTLB.

If you wish to be a successful cyber forensics professional world wide, joining of the courses of PTLB is a must. Since seats are limited, early registration is beneficial.

Tuesday 5 April 2011

United Nations And Online Dispute Resolution

What is common between United Nations, online dispute resolution (ODR) and India? In the future one may see the collaboration between these three factors. As far as United Nations is concerned, United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) has constituted a working group on ODR. This establishes the relationship between UNCITRAL and ODR. India is going to play a major role in this entire process as an important regional ODR initiative provider, hence UNCITRAL, ODR and India are interconnected.

UNCITRAL has to come in to picture as international harmonisation of ODR is the need of the hour. It has the primary responsibility to ensure international legal standards for ODR. Similarly, online dispute resolution in India is also having its own share of discussions. However, success of ODR in India is still doubtful. To be successful, ODR in India needs urgent rejuvenation. This has happened because legal enablement of ICT systems in India is missing.

ODR and cross border e-commerce transactions are also interrelated. E-commerce is global in nature and nothing can solve disputes arising out of e-commerce more effectively than ODR. Similar is the case regarding dispute resolution of cross border technology transactions.

Individuals and Organisations are exploring the use of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) and Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) mechanisms to resolve Technology Related Disputes, informs Praveen Dalal, managing partner of New Delhi based IP and ICT law firm Perry4Law and leading techno legal expert of India.

While drafting and vetting contractual agreements involving Technology Transfers and Licensing, we specifically and consensually incorporate an ADR/ODR clause mandating “Institutional Arbitration” through Institutions like WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center or UNCITRAL based Arbitration Institutions, informs Dalal.

Dispute Resolution of Cross Border Technology Transactions is the latest trend in international commercial arbitration, informs Dalal. Further, Domain Name Dispute Resolution Services in India would also see an increase in near future, says Dalal.

Even the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) has recently announced that cyber squatting cases have increased significantly in the recent years. So almost every aspect of technology has a dispute element attached to it. Organisations like WIPO, UNCITRAL, etc must play a more active role for strengthening ODR mechanism in general and technology related dispute resolution mechanisms in particular.

Traditional Knowledge Digital Library (TKDL) Of India And WIPO

Traditional Knowledge Digital Library (TKDL) of India has invoked the interest of international community, especially World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO). WIPO is looking forward to collaborate with the Government of India to make available the Government’s experience, expertise and technology in establishing the TKDL to other countries that wish, of their own accord, to create their own TKDLs and would assist beneficiary countries, should they so wish, to conclude access and non-disclosure agreements with international patent offices. However, establishing TKDLs raises a number of policies, legal, practical and a number of technological challenges.

The TKDL is an effort to provide patent offices with resources to understand India’s traditional knowledge. Indeed, having as much information as possible at one’s fingertips is essential to drafting, examining, and understanding patent applications/patents. The information in the Library is intended to act as a “bridge” between the ancient Sanskrit information, and patent examiners at international offices—a bold goal. So far, EPO, Indian, German, UK, US, Canadian, and Australian examiners have access to the information stored in the library. The intention is to allow these examiners to better understand the historical knowledge and to prevent complex and expensive opposition procedures.

The Indian TKDL project, developed over a ten year period, documented knowledge about traditional medical treatments and the curative properties of plants, which was contained in ancient texts and languages, and classified the information in a searchable database. The TKDL now contains 34 million pages in five international languages. By making this information available, via Access and Non-Disclosure Agreements, to six major international patent offices, the TKDL, coupled with India’s global bio-piracy watch system, has, according to the CSIR, achieved dramatic success in preventing the grant of erroneous patents, at minimal direct cost and in a matter of a few weeks.

WIPO has claimed that India’s TKDL could be a good model for others and that WIPO was ready to facilitate international collaboration for countries which, inspired by the Indian example, were interested in establishing their own TKDLs.

Misappropriation of traditional knowledge and bio-piracy of genetic resources are the issues of great concern for all the developing countries. These issues are being pursued at several multilateral forums, such as Convention on Biological Diversity, TRIPs Council, World Trade Organisation and World Intellectual Property Organisation. However, so far a ‘global framework’ for traditional knowledge protection system has not been established. It is mainly for this reason that Mexico had to fight a legal battle for 10 years to get the patent on Enola bean at the United States Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO) cancelled in July 2009. Similarly, the cancellation of Monsanto Soybean patent in July 2007 at the European Patent Office (EPO) took 13 years of legal battle.

Sunday 3 April 2011

Domain Name Dispute Resolution Services In India

World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) has recently revealed that cases of cyber squatting have increased tremendously these days. Cyber squatting is an unfair practice done with bad faith that registers well known brands as domain name. The owners of these brands are then asked to purchase the domain name at a hefty price.

Although this nuisance is well known, India has no legal framework to deal with the same. Cases of cyber squatting are also on rise in India with little option but to approach traditional courts.

We have no Domain Name Protection Law in India and Cyber Squatting cases are decided under the Indian Trademark Act, 1999 informs Praveen Dalal, managing partner of New Delhi based IP and ICT law firm Perry4Law. Even Institutional Arbitration Framework has not been adequately developed by India to resolve such disputes, informs Dalal. In fact, Dispute Resolution in Cross Border Technology Transactions would be one of the areas that would emerge in the near future, predicts Dalal.

So from the point of view of both legal framework as well as institutional mechanisms, domain name dispute resolution services in India are not upto the mark. Even online dispute resolution (ODR) services in India are not upto the mark.

We have a single techno legal ADR and ODR Centre in India. Further, we have also a single techno legal ADR and ODR service provider in India. These initiatives are part of the techno legal projects and initiatives of Perry4Law Techno Legal Base (PTLB). Collectively, the exclusive E-courts training and consultancy centre of India manages the issues of ADR, ODR, e-courts, domain name dispute resolution in India, etc.

However, domain name dispute resolution through ADR or ODR is not very popular in India in the absence of international harmonisation. International Harmonisation of ODR is required that is presently governed by different sets of Rules and Procedures, suggests Dalal. Institutions like WIPO, United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL), etc must think and work in this direction, suggests Dalal.

One area that requires immediate attention of international community is harmonisation of dispute resolution protocols and procedures. We must also either amend the Indian Trademark Act, 1999 or enact a separate Cybersquatting Law of India, suggests Dalal.

The scope of domain name dispute resolution services in India is great provided organisations like WIPO, UNCITRAL and PTLB works together in this regard. Presently, the efforts and initiatives of national and international organisations are fragmented and unorganised. Let us hope in future the situation would improve for the benefit of all concerned.

Saturday 2 April 2011

Securing Domain Name Protection In India

This is the guest column of Praveen Dalal, Managing Partner of New Delhi based IP and ICT Law Firm Perry4Law. Praveen Dalal is the leading techno legal expert of India and is a Panelist at many national and International forums like FICCI, WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Centre, etc. This is his seminal work on Domain Name Protection in India that has been the most widely quoted and circulated research work on the topic. Praveen Dalal is also the CEO of Perry4Law Techno Legal Base (PTLB) that is managing the exclusive Techno Legal ADR and ODR Centre of India. PTLB is also the exclusive Techno Legal ADR and ODR Service Provider of India and World wide. Another unique initiative of Perry4Law and PTLB is the exclusive techno legal E-Courts Training and Consultancy Centre of India. The work was first published at Ipfrontline and has been posted here with permission from Perry4Law and PTLB.

The aim of this article is to analyse the protection available to domain name holders under the laws of India. The article further explores how the protection provided by the Indian laws is strongest in the world. Thus, a comparative analysis of the Trade Mark and the Domain Name has been made to provide a holistic picture.

(I) Introduction

The original role of a domain name was to provide an address for computers on the Internet. The Internet has, however, developed from a mere means of communication to a mode of carrying on commercial activity. With the increase of commercial activity on the Internet, a domain name is also used as a business identifier. Therefore, the domain name not only serves as an address for Internet communication but also identifies the specific Internet site. In the commercial field, each domain name owner provides information/services, which are associated with such domain name. A domain name is easy to remember and use, and is chosen as an instrument of commercial enterprise not only because it facilitates the ability of consumers to navigate the internet to find websites they are looking for, but also at the same time, serves to identify and distinguish the business itself, or its goods or services, and to specify its corresponding online internet location. Consequently a domain name as an address must, of necessity, is peculiar and unique and where a domain name is used in connection with a business, the value of maintaining an exclusive identity becomes critical. As more and more commercial enterprises trade or advertise their presence on the web, domain names have become more and more valuable and the potential for dispute is high. Whereas a large number of trademarks containing the same name can comfortably co-exist because they are associated with different products, belong to business in different jurisdictions etc, the distinctive nature of the domain name providing global exclusivity is much sought after. The fact that many consumers searching for a particular site are likely, in the first place, to try and guess its domain name has further enhanced this value[1]. The law does not permit any one to carry on his business in such a way as would persuade the customers or clients in believing that the goods or services belonging to someone else are his or are associated therewith. It does not matter whether the latter person does so fraudulently or otherwise. The reasons are two. Firstly, honesty and fair play are, and ought to be, the basic policies in the world of business. Secondly, when a person adopts or intends to adopt a name in connection with his business or services, which already belongs to someone else, it results in confusion and has propensity of diverting the customers and clients of someone else to himself and thereby resulting in injury[2]. Thus, a Domain Name requires a strong, constant and instant protection under all the legal systems of the world, including India. This can be achieved either by adopting harmonisation of laws all over the world or by jealously protecting the same in the municipal spheres by all the countries of the world.

(II) Trade Mark v. Domain Name

There is a distinction between a trademark and a domain name, which is not relevant to the nature of the right of an owner in connection with the domain name, but is material to the “scope of the protection” available to the right. The distinction lies in the manner in which the two operate. A trademark is protected by the laws of a country where such trademark may be registered. Consequently, a trademark may have multiple registrations in many countries throughout the world. On the other hand, since the internet allows for access without any geographical limitation, a domain name is potentially accessible irrespective of the geographical location of the consumers. The outcome of this potential for universal connectivity is not only that a domain name would require world wide exclusivity but also that national laws might be inadequate to effectively protect a domain name. The lacuna necessitated international regulation of the domain name system (DNS). This international regulation was effected through WIPO[3] and ICANN[4]. The outcome of consultation between ICANN and WIPO has resulted in the setting up not only of a system of registration of domain names with accredited Registrars but also the evolution of the Uniform Domain Name Disputes Resolution Policy (UDNDR Policy) by ICANN on 24th October 1999. As far as registration is concerned, it is provided on a first come first serve basis. Besides the UDNDR Policy is instructive as to the kind of rights which a domain name owner may have upon registration with ICANN accredited Registrars[5].

(III) Dispute resolution under the Uniform Domain Name Disputes Resolution Policy (UDNDR Policy) by ICANN

A person may complain before administration-dispute-resolution service providers listed by ICANN under Rule 4(a) that:

i) A domain name is “identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark” in which the complainant has rights; and
ii) The domain name owner/registrant has no right or legitimate interest in respect of the domain name; and
iii) A domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

Rule 4(b) has listed by way of illustration the following four circumstances as evidence of registration and use of a domain name in bad faith:

(i) Circumstances indicating that the domain name owner/registrant has registered or the domain name owner/registrant has acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of its documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or

(ii) The domain name owner/registrant has registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that it has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or

(iii) The domain name owner/registrant has registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or

(iv) By using the domain name, the domain name owner/ registrant has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain internet users, to its web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainants mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the domain name owner/registrant web site or location or of a product or service on its web site or location.

The defences available to such a complaint have been particularised “but without limitation", in Rule 4 (c) as follows:

(i) Before any notice to the domain name owner/registrant, the use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with bona fide offering of goods or services; or

(ii) The domain name owner/registrant (as an individual, business, or other organization) has been commonly known by the domain name, even if it has acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or

(iii) The domain name owner/registrant is making a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.

These rules indicate that the disputes may be broadly categorised as:

(a) disputes between trademark owners and domain name owners and
(b) between domain name owners inter se.

A prior registrant can protect its domain name against subsequent registrants. Confusing similarity in domain names may be a ground for complaint and similarity is to be decided on the possibility of deception amongst potential customers. The defences available to a complaint are also substantially similar to those available to an action for passing off under trademark law. As far as India is concerned, there is no legislation, which explicitly refers to dispute resolution in connection with domain names. But although the operation of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 itself is not extra territorial and may not allow for adequate protection of domain names, this does not mean that domain names are not to be legally protected to the extent possible under the laws relating to passing off[6].

(IV) The Trademarks Act, 1999

In India, the Trademarks Act, 1999 (Act) provide protection to trademarks and service marks respectively. A closer perusal of the provisions of the Act and the judgments given by the Courts in India reveals that the protection available under the Act is stronger than internationally required and provided. Rule 2 of the UDNDR Policy requires the applicant to determine that the domain name, for which registration is sought, does not infringes or violates someone else's rights. Thus, if the domain name, proposed to be registered, is in violation of another person’s “trademark rights”, it will violate Rule 2 of the Policy. In such an eventuality, the Registrar is within his right to refuse to register the domain name. This shows that a domain name, though properly registered as per the requirements of ICANN, still it is subject to the Trademarks Act, 1999 if a person successfully proves that he has “rights’ flowing out of the Act. This point is further strengthened if we read Rule 2 along with Rule 4(k), which provides the parties have a right to agitate before a court of competent jurisdiction, irrespective of the declaration or decision to the contrary by the ICANN. Thus, a contrary decision of an Indian Court of competent jurisdiction will prevail over the decision of ICANN. The rights and liability to be adjudicated under the Trademarks Act, 1999 can be sub-divided under the following groups:

(a) Liability for infringement, and
(b) Liability for Passing off.

(a) Liability for infringement: A trademark on registration is endowed with strong protection under the Act. The Act allows the owner of the registered trademark to avail of the remedies of infringement and passing off. It must be noted that though the passing off remedy can be availed of irrespective of registration, the remedy of infringement can be availed of only if the trademark is registered properly as per the provisions of the Act[7]. Thus, a person holding a domain name violating a registered trademark can be held liable for infringement under the provisions of the Act.

(b) Liability for passing off: The passing off action depends upon the principle that nobody has a right to represent his goods as the goods of some body. In other words a man is not to sell his goods or services under the pretence that they are those of another person.

The modern tort of passing off has five elements i.e.

(1) a misrepresentation
(2) made by a trader in the course of trade,
(3) to prospective customers of his or ultimate consumers of goods or services supplied by him,
(4) which is calculated to injure the business or goodwill of another trader (in the sense that this is a reasonably foreseeable consequence) and
(5) which causes actual damage to a business or goodwill of the trader by whom the action is brought or (in a quia timet action) will probably do so[8].

The trademark is essentially adopted to advertise ones product and to make it known to the purchaser. It attempts to portray the nature and, if possible, the quality of the product and over a period of time the mark may become popular. It is usually at that stage that other people are tempted to pass off their products as that of the original owner of the mark. That is why it is said that in a passing off action, the plaintiffs right is against the conduct of the defendant, which leads to or is intended or calculated to lead to deception[9].

Passing off is said to be a species of unfair trade competition or of actionable unfair trading by which one person, through deception, attempts to obtain an economic benefit of the reputation, which other has established for himself in a particular trade or business. The action is regarded as an action for deceit[10].

Salmond & Heuston in Law of Torts (Twentieth Edition, at p.395) call this form of injury as injurious falsehood and state: - The legal and economic basis of this tort is to provide protection for the right of property which exists not in a particular name, mark or style but in an established business, commercial or professional reputation or goodwill. So to sell merchandise or carry on business under such a name, mark, description, or otherwise in such a manner as to mislead the public into believing that the merchandise or business is that of another person is a wrong actionable at the suit of that other person. This form of injury is commonly, though awkwardly, termed that of passing off ones goods or business as the goods or business of another and is the most important example of the wrong of injurious falsehood. The gist of the conception of passing off is that the goods are in effect telling a falsehood about themselves, are saying something about themselves, which is calculated to mislead. The law on this matter is designed to protect traders against that form of unfair competition, which consists in acquiring for oneself, by means of false or misleading devices, the benefit of the reputation already achieved by rival traders. The gist of passing off action was defined by stating that it was essential to the success of any claim to passing off based on the use of given mark or get-up that the plaintiff should be able to show that the disputed mark or get-up has become by user in the country distinctive of the plaintiffs goods so that the use in relation to any goods of the kind dealt in by the plaintiff of that mark or get up will be understood by the trade and the public in that country as meaning that the goods are the plaintiffs goods. It is in the nature of acquisition of a quasi-proprietary right to the exclusive use of the mark or get-up in relation to goods of that kind because of the plaintiff having used or made it known that the mark or get-up has relation to his goods. Such right is invaded by anyone using the same or some deceptively similar mark, get-up or name in relation to goods not of plaintiff. The three elements of passing off action are the reputation of goods, possibility of deception and likelihood of damages to the plaintiff. The same principle, which applies to trade mark, is applicable to trade name. In an action for passing off it is usual, rather essential, to seek an injunction temporary or ad-interim. The principles for the grant of such injunction are the same as in the case of any other action against injury complained of. The plaintiff must prove a prima facie case, availability of balance of convenience in his favour and his suffering an irreparable injury in the absence of grant of injunction. According to Kerly passing off cases are often cases of deliberate and intentional misrepresentation, but it is well settled that fraud is not a necessary element of the right of action, and the absence of an intention to deceive is not a defence though proof of fraudulent intention may materially assist a plaintiff in establishing probability of deception. Christopher Wadlow in Law of Passing Off (1995 Edition, at p.3.06) states that the plaintiff does not have to prove actual damage in order to succeed in an action for passing off. Likelihood of damage is sufficient. The same learned author states that the defendant’s state of mind is wholly irrelevant to the existence of the cause of action for passing off. As to how the injunction granted by the Court would shape depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. Where a defendant has imitated or adopted the plaintiff’s distinctive trademark or business name, the order may be an absolute injunction that he would not use or carry on business under that name. (Kerly, ibid, para 16.97). Once a case of passing off is made out the practice is generally to grant a prompt ex-parte injunction followed by appointment of local Commissioner, if necessary[11].

Broadly stated in an action for passing off on the basis of unregistered trademark, generally for deciding the question of deceptive similarity the following factors to be considered:

a) The nature of the marks i.e. whether the marks are word marks or label marks or composite marks, i.e. both words and label works.
b) The degree of resembleness between the marks, phonetically similar and hence similar in idea.
c) The nature of the goods in respect of which they are used as trademarks.
d) The similarity in the nature, character and performance of the goods of the rival traders.
e) The class of purchasers who are likely to buy the goods bearing the marks they require, on their education and intelligence and a degree of care they are likely to exercise in purchasing and/or using the goods.
f) The mode of purchasing the goods or placing orders for the goods and
g) Any other surrounding circumstances which may be relevant in the extent of dissimilarity between the competing marks.

Weightage has to be given to each of the aforesaid factors depends upon facts of each case and the same weightage cannot be given to each factor in every case[12]. A domain name may have all the characteristics of a trademark and could found an action for passing off[13] by applying the abovementioned principles.

(V) Scope of protection under T.M.A, 1999

The Act covers the remedies peculiar to Indian legal system as well as the well-known common law principles of passing off. At the same time it is in conformity with the recognised international principles and norms. Thus, the protection provided under the Act is more reliable and secure. The following provisions are relevant in this regard:

(a) A trademark registered under the Act has the backing of the infringement and passing off remedies. An unregistered trademark is not protected by the Act, except to the extent of availing of passing off remedy[14]. The definition of the terms “mark” and “trademark” is so widely given that it conveniently covers domain name[15]. It must be noted that a “mark” is used, rightly or wrongly, if it is used in printed or other visual representation[16]. It cannot be doubted that a domain name corresponding a mark is definitely used both in the printed form (electronic form) and by visual representation. Thus, the provisions of the Act can safely be invoked to fix the liability in those cases.

(b) A passing off action is maintainable in law even against the registered owner of the trademark, particularly if the trademark has a transborder reputation[17]. This, principle recognises the mandate of protecting the well-known trademarks, as required by the TRIPS Agreement and the Trademarks Act, 1999. Thus, even if a domain name is registered in good faith and innocently, the passing off action is maintainable against the registrant.

(c) The registration of domain name with the Registrars recognised and approved by the ICANN may not have the same consequences as registration under the Trademarks Act, 1999[18]. For instance, a registration under the Act carries with it a presumption of validity[19].

(d) The Act considers even an innocent infringement or passing off as wrong against the right holder, unlike domain name where mala fides has to be proved. Thus, it does not matter whether the person offending the right does so fraudulently or otherwise[20].

(e) The Act will have overriding effect over any other law, which is in conflict with it. Further, since it is in conformity with the TRIPS Agreement, it is equally in conformity with the well-accepted international standards. It must be noted that Rule 4 (k) provides that the proceedings under the UDNDR Policy would not prevent either the domain name owner/registrant or the complainant from submitting the dispute to a court of competent jurisdiction for independent resolution, either before proceeding under ICANN's policy or after such proceeding is concluded. This shows that there is a simultaneous and double protection available under the Act.

(f) The provisions of the Act are in conformity with the TRIPS Agreement and the W.T.O provisions. These provisions are mandatory in nature unlike the provisions of W.I.P.O, which are persuasive and discretionary in nature. The UDNDR Policy is formulated under the provisions of W.I.P.O; hence it is not binding on parties whose rights are flowing from the Act. The distinction is crucial since in case of conflict between the Policy and the Act, the latter will prevail and will govern the rights of the parties falling within its ambit.

(g) The Act allows the making of an “International application” resulting in automatic protection in designated countries mentioned in it[21]. This gives a wider and strong protection to the trademark and makes its misappropriation harsh and punitive.

(h) The procedure for registration under the Act is more safe and reliable, as it is not granted on a first come first basis. The safeguards provided under the Act are properly followed and only thereafter a trademark is granted. Thus, the right recognised under the Act is more reliable, strong and authentic.

(VI) Conclusion

The protection of domain name under the Indian legal system is standing on a higher footing as compared to a simple recognition of right under the UDNDR Policy. The ramification of the Trademarks Act, 1999 are much wider and capable of conferring the strongest protection to the domain names in the world. The need of the present time is to harmoniously apply the principles of the trademark law and the provisions concerning the domain names. It must be noted that the moment a decision is given by the Supreme Court and it attains finality, then it becomes binding on all the person or institutions in India[22]. It cannot be challenged by showing any “statutory provision” to the contrary. This is so because no statutory provision can override a “Constitutional provision” and in case of a conflict, if any, the former must give way to the latter. This settled legal position becomes relevant when we consider the decision of the Supreme Court in Satyam case (supra) in the light of the above discussion. The various landmark judgments of the Supreme Court have conferred the “most strongest protection” to the domain names in the world. The only requirement to claim the same is that we must appreciate them in their true perspective and apply them in a purposive and updating manner.

[1] M/s Satyam Infoway Ltd v M/s Sifynet Solutions Pvt. Ltd, (2004) 6 SCC 145.
[2] Lakshmikant v Chetanbhat Shah, JT 2001 (10) SC 285.
[3] World Intellectual Property Organisation.
[4] The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers.
[5] M/s Satyam Infoway Ltd v M/s Sifynet Solutions Pvt. Ltd, (2004) 6 SCC 145.
[6] M/s Satyam Infoway Ltd v M/s Sifynet Solutions Pvt. Ltd, (2004) 6 SCC 145.
[7] Section 27.
[8] Lord Diplock in Erwen Warnink BV v J Townend & Sons, 1979(2) AER 927.
[9] Cadila Health Care Ltd v Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd, JT 2001 (4) SC 243.
[10] Wander Ltd v Antox India Pvt Ltd, 1990 Suppl SCC 727.
[11] Lakshmikant v Chetanbhat Shah, JT 2001 (10) SC 285.
[12] Cadila Healthcare Limited v Cadila Pharmaceuticals Limited, JT 2001 (4) SC 243.
[13] M/s Satyam Infoway Ltd v M/s Sifynet Solutions Pvt. Ltd, (2004) 6 SCC 145.
[14] Section 27.
[15] Sections 2(1) (m) and Section 2(1)(z) respectively.