9
permission even for hyper-linking. For example, RBI expressly requires their permission
before linking, though it is against the customary practices of internet.
Deep-linking (Courts have in some cases defined it as linking beyond the home-page) is
treated differently from hyper-linking. There are many aspects to this. Websites which
earn revenues
through advertisements, object to deep-linking,
because the user is
directed to an internal page, by-passing the advertisements on the home-page, thereby
causing loss of revenue. While this point is a business issue,
there are wider legal
ramifications as well.
Cases - Bixee versus Naukri.com
Bixee.com led the user to the internal pages of Naukri, there
by by-passing the home
page that contains the advertisements, for which Naukri claimed loss of revenue. There
was another aspect to this case.
Bixee’s
business was enabling
it’s
users to search for
jobs on a number of other websites. By deep-linking to
Naukri.com’s
website, Bixee was
using
Naukri’s
database for its business. Database is protected through copyright and
such deep-linking was considered as copyright infringement.
Bixee.com has been prohibited
from deep linking into, copying, downloading and
reproducing content from naukri.com. This is perhaps the first time that a case involving
‘dee
p
linking’
and
‘aggregators
of content from other
websites’
has reached a court room
in India.
Cybersquatting
Cybersquatting is the most important type of domain dispute existing around the world. It
is a practice wherein individuals buy domain-names reflecting the name of the existing
companies, with an intention of selling the names back to businesses to attain a profit
when they plan to set up their own sites. Companies in India and all over the world such
Google, yahoo, TATA , DELL have faced the brunt of cybersquatting. Besides, the courts
in India have been very vigilant in protecting the trademark interest of the domain name
owners who have suffered from cyber squatters.
Rule of law
10
When a defendant does business under a name which is close to the name under which
the plaintiff is trading and that name has acquired a reputation and public is likely to be
misled that the defendant's business is
the business of the plaintiff, or is a branch or
department of the plaintiff, the defendant is liable for an action in passing off, As the two
trademarks/domain names 'Yahoo!' and 'Yahoo India!' were almost similar and the latter
had offered web services that were similar to those offered by yahoo and as the latter
passed them off as being offered by Yahoo Inc., the court held Akash liable for passing
off and restrained him from using the deceptively similar domain name.
