Course- Intellectual Property Law

Course Code – 2BL726

Research Article Title: UDRP AND

PASSING OFF ACTION FOR
PROTECTION OF THE DOMAIN NAME

Submitted by-
Adtiya Chhangani (18bbl066)

Atharv Bhargava (18bbl072)

Ishika Rajoria (18bbl079)

Kapil Shrivastava (18bbl081)

Manav Bhagat (18bbl085)

Parth Rachchh (18bbl092)

Submitted to- Neelesh Shukla (Professor)

1
 ABSTRACT

A Domain Name is a word or a combination of words which help identify a website,

association with another individual. Any individual can purchase a Domain Name from a
certified Registrar for a limited amount of time. The act of passing-off is a civil wrong
inherited from common law in which a person engages in a common sphere of activities and
business in order to take over the goods and services of another. The conduct will produce a
misleading similarity with the items and will cause confusion among consumers and traders
in trade, resulting in a significant loss of revenue for the original proprietor. In the present
article we will be throwing some light on passing off and cybersquatting, issues involved
with cybersquatting and passing off and its implications on intellectual property rights and
how they are different from each other. We have also discussed Uniform Domain name
dispute resolution policy (UDRP) and ICANN and its effect on global level with domain
name disputes. Further we will also make a comparative analysis of how the law regarding
passing off differs in three different jurisdictions i.e., USA, UK and INDIA. Further in the
article we have discussed court judgements around the globe regarding the domain name
disputes. Then the article is summed up by conclusions and individual opinions of group
members on the topic.

2
TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF AUTHORITIES

3
 LITERATURE REVIEW

1. RUSSELL J KELSALL 2005: The author discusses in the article that the governing
body of the Internet, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
(ICANN) attempted to resolve this problem with the Uniform Domain Name Dispute
Resolution Policy (UDRP). However, this problem has been fraught with allegations
of protection of domain above and beyond the remit of trademark law.
2. SRI MAHARANI MTVM 2021: In this paper the author discusses the practice of a
business on goods and/or services, the brand becomes an important factor in the
sustainability and progress of the goods and/or services. The level of a brand of goods
and/or services becomes a brand known by the public is the level desired by the
manufacturer of the product and the owner of the trademark itself. The popularity of a
brand became a famous mark capable of causing violations of the brand both in the
country itself and outside of the country, brand violations become a breach in a more
sophisticated direction again, this violation is referred to as the term passing off.
3. OLEH : HERTI YUNITA PUTRI 2016: In the article author discusses how in
cyber world we often hear about domain name’s term. Domain name is a unique name
to identify the server computer’s name. However, similar domain name are often used
by people who are not responsible to take advantages of the domain name for
themself. This can be caused by the presence of competition from Internet media
business. This things called passing off. There are two passing off related to the merk
and domain name, called Cybersquatting and Tiposquatting.
4. GH TARNOW 2004: In the article author raised the issue of domain names
incorporating personal names was also addressed in the United States by the Anti-
Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act ("Act"). The Act has a provision
specifically for relief against the unauthorized use of personal names that are not
registered trademarks. It too, is of limited assistance, as a defendant is not liable

4
 unless he had registered the domain name "with the specific intent to profit by selling
the domain name for financial gain.
5. SOURABH GHOSH 2004: In this article the author has discussed the domain name
disputes along with categories in which the domain name disputes shall fall and the
case laws regarding the same. The article further analyzed the international dispute
resolution procedure Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) and
the decided cases under the UDRP regime. Author has identified some of the flaws in
the UDRP which includes biased in favour of the trademark holders, key terms are
vague, etc. After analyzing the policy and case laws, author has proposed certain
suggestions which can make the process more effective.
6. SUKRUT DEO, SAPNA DEO 2019: In this article the author has explained the
concept of domain name, registration and disputes pertaining to domain name. The
later part of the article throws light on the disputes arising out of unauthorized use of
the domain name and the case laws pertaining to the same. Domain name is a name of
internet protocol for easy identification. Registrant of domain name enjoys the
exclusive right to use his domain name which is protected by the law.
7. POONAM DASS 2010: The author in this article discusses the challenges that arise
in the interface between domain names and trademarks. Domain names help to
identify the business on the internet so they shall have equal protection as trademark.
With the global access to website, the domain name shall have exclusivity worldwide
but identical trademarks may exist in the different jurisdiction. Strict legislation is
required addressing the jurisdictional issue for the protection of domain name owners
and trademark.
8. CÉDRIC MANARA 2005: In this article the author has discussed that the decided
cases in various countries under their respective national laws or Uniform Domain
Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) acts as precedents in other countries. Online
publication of these decisions help the parties to cite precedents in their submission
and also help foreign courts which are dealing with disputes on domain names for the
first time. Creation of UDRP brings uniformity as it is an international dispute
resolution procedure to solve disputes between domain name owners and trademark
holders.
9. FAHED WAHDANI 2021: The author through this paper provides insight into the
legal nature of cybersquatting in order to improve the protection and recognition of
rights over contested domain name rights. The nature of domain names is stated by

5
 the author. Author says that Cybersquatting is a critical issue in Cyberspace, and
understanding the legal nature of Cybersquatting will aid us in dealing with these
phenomena in the best possible way as long as we can provide long-term guarantees
to the Cyberspace Community and stakeholders and provide dynamic legal stability to
investments in the Digital Era. However, there is currently no understanding on what
constitutes a Cybersquatting and through this paper author unravel all these aspects
10. MANZOOR LASKAR,2013: The author covers the principles of passing off and
trademark infringement under the Trademarks Act of 1999 in this article. It explains
what constitutes passing off and trademark infringement, what remedies are available,
who may sue and be sued, and what defences are available in the event of trademark
infringement. The article also goes through the variables to consider in passing off
and infringement cases, as well as various legal decisions made by Indian courts.
11. EDWARD C. ANDERSON, 2002: The author of this article analyses whether all
electronic commerce conflicts may be resolved using the same or a comparable
approach. The authors begin by examining the structural flaws in traditional litigation
that led to the creation of the UDRP. Secondly, the authors explain why a UDRP
procedure is preferable to traditional litigation. Thirdly, the authors discuss the issues
that internet commerce may provide to dispute resolution in the future. Finally, the
authors look at the UDRP model's application to electronic commerce dispute
resolution, especially in terms of cost and enforcement.
12. SUNIL PRAKASH DHADWAD, 2018: The author through this article addresses the
relevant aspects of the Indian legislation, emphasising the protection provided to
owners of well-known trademarks against passing off and infringement. It explains
what constitutes passing off and infringement of well-known trademarks, what
remedies are available, who may sue and who can be sued, and what defences are
available in cases of well-known trademark infringement. The article also goes
through the variables to consider in passing off and infringement cases, as well as
various legal decisions issued by Indian courts.
13. PATRICK D KELLY, 2002: the author in the present article has examined the
criticism in the light decisions given under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute
Resolution Policy implemented by ICANN. The author has also suggested ways as to
how the criticism can be removed and the domain name disputes can be solved
efficiently using the UDRP. The author in the present article has also made reference
to the US Supreme court model which can be used to improve the efficacy of UDRP.

6
 14. LUKE A. WALKER , 2000: the author in the present article/note has begun by
stating about the content and scope of ICANN’s UDRP and also discussed whether
UDRP has been Successful or not in comparison to previous dispute resolution
policies of ICANN. The author has provided about the history and formation of
ICANN and it role in solving domain name disputes and how ICANN’s policies can
be improved.
15. THOMAS WEBSTER, 2001: The author in the present article claims that UDRP has
been developed in a such a way to deal with cybersquats and it reasonably works well
to resolve dispute between internet rights and trademark rights, the author further
states success of UDRP is due to certain reasons like multijurisdictional aspect, rapid
decision process , limiting the liability of registrars and low cost of registering domain
names with the registrar. Further the author states that though UDRP has very limited
scope but he states same can be used to resolve other intellectual property disputes
and has been achieving good results since 2000’s.
16. SWATI DEVA, 2005: the author in the present article has discussed about how the
Indian legal system has addressed the problem of cybersquatting with regards to
domain name registration and resolution of problems arsing there to. The author in
the present case has also discussed Indian court judgement with regards to domain
name disputes and India’s quest to respond it through trademark act and information
technology act. The author further argues that though issues of domain name disputes
have been solved smoothly by the courts it is essential for India to enact a special
legislation to deal with domain name disputes instead of dealing with them under
trademarks act and IT Act.
17. ROBERT A. BADGLEY, 2001: the author in the present article has first of praised
the ICANN for developing uniform policy to deal with the domain name disputes
through creative though ambiguous arbitration procedure. He further states that
uniform policy has been successful to serve its purpose, while in the present article
the author has also pointed out certain criticisms of the ICANN dispute resolution
policy and suggested few changes which should be implemented to increase and
improve the efficiency of ICANN’s uniform policy to resolve domain name disputes.
18. PAPIYA GHOSH 2012: In this paper the author discusses domain name disputes
also some court Cases in India. With the extensive penetration of internet in data
communication and commerce, the legal issues that it raises must be examined from a
variety of angles. The mushrooming number of domain name conflicts around the

7
 world puts a great strain on icann with respect to domain name registration policy,
which is based on a first-come, first-served basis. Despite the fact that many countries
have enacted or are enacting legislation to address this issue, India still lacks such
legislation.
19. LISA M. SHARROCK 2001: The author in this article discusses The Future of
Domain Name Dispute Resolution: Crafting Practical International Legal Solutions
from within the UDRP Framework. According to the author because of its low cost
and relative ease of use, the UDRP has quickly become an essential component of the
cyberlaw landscape, becoming into the world's most popular domain name dispute
resolution system. Despite this, the international system is not yet totally uniform. The
arbitrators' decisions under the UDRP aren't always consistent, which causes
uncertainty, sabotages reliance interests, and raises suspicions of prejudice. However,
ICANN has the opportunity to shape the UDRP into an international dispute
resolution mechanism that is fair, efficient, and consistent.
20. SUNANDO MUKHERJEE 2004: The author in this article performs a legal analysis
of Passing Off in Internet Domain Names. It also evaluates the position of in other
nations governing such a tort (before to the notice of the Trademarks Act, 1999) in
comparison to India, as well as other international bodies that have attempted to
assuage the anxieties of real users and provide them with relief.
21. AKANSHA SRIVASTAVA 2018: The author in this paper conveys that
Cybersquatting and Domain names are both part of the trademark and require
protection. The function of trademarks for online trade and businesses is represented
by domain names. Domain name registration is done on a first-come, first-served
basis. As a result of this loophole, cybersquatting occurs, which involves reserving
trade names, company names, and other domain names with the intent of causing
harm to legitimate buyers.

8
9
 INTRODUCTION

We are living during a time that is represented primarily by the data innovation. The internet
which actually signifies "the universe of machines" has all of a sudden turned out to be more
appealing to the advanced man since it includes made conceivable that inside seconds he may
build up contact with the other individual situated at another edge of the world. This
worldwide availability has encouraged the trading of perspectives as likewise exchange of
business, other than obviously a considerable measure of different exercises, straightforward
as at no other time, and is today known as "web".
A Domain Name is a word or a combination of words which help identify a website's
association with another individual. Any individual can purchase a Domain Name from a
certified Registrar for a limited amount of time. These are easily identifiable, for e.g.
www.google.com, 'google' is the second-level domain1.Domain Names can be registered and
protected as trademarks under the Trade Marks Act 1999. In case of any abusive registrations
or infringement of existing rights2, an individual has the option to file a Domain Name
Dispute complaint against the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
(ICANN).
An individual has the option to file a complaint against the ICANN 3 if they feel their domain
name rights are being abused or infringed. Domain Names can be registered and protected as
trademarks under the Trade Marks Act 1999. Businesses can use the Uniform Domain Name
Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP)4, a standard and uniform Policy across the world. As the
internet is not restricted by any borders or boundaries, a domain name infringement can occur
in a country different from where it is registered.
The act of passing-off is a civil wrong inherited from common law in which a person engages
in a common sphere of activities and business in order to take over the goods and services of

1
Rusell J Kelsal, A survey of the decisions of various dispute-resolution service provider under ICANN UDPR
clearly demonstrate that there is no meaningful relationship between trademark law and ownership of domain
name, STUDENT LAW JOURNAL (Nov. 20, 2021, 10:41 AM),
http://www.studentlawjournal.co.uk/articles/2005/ugrad/domaintmrjk.pdf.
2
Sri Maharani MTVM, Protection Of Legal Trademark Against Keen From Passing Off, VOL 2 NO 1 (2021):
LIGA HUKUM (Nov. 20, 2021, 10:42 AM),
http://ligahukum.upnjatim.ac.id/index.php/ligahukum/article/view/74.
3
Georgette H. Tarnow, WWW.YOURNAME.COM: How Useful is the Uniform Domain Name Dispute
Resolution Policy ("UDRP") in Protecting Personal Names From CyberSquatters?, THE JOHN MARSHALL
JOURNAL OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY & PRIVACY LAW VOLUME 22 ISSUE 3 JOURNAL OF
COMPUTER & INFORMATION LAW - SPRING 2004 (Nov. 20, 2021, 10:50 AM),
https://repository.law.uic.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1095&context=jitpl.
4
ICANN, Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy, ICANN (Nov. 20, 2021, 05:41 AM),
https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/help/dndr/udrp-en.

10
another. The conduct will produce a misleading similarity with the items and will cause
confusion among consumers and traders in trade, resulting in a significant loss of revenue for
the original proprietor.

11
12
 I. PASSING OFF

Though there is no formal definition of passing off, it is mentioned in Section 27(1) of the
Trade Marks Act of 19995. No one is allowed to deceive someone by falsely representing his
commodities as the goods of another person, according to the court in Singer Manufacturing
Co. vs. Loog.6 no one is also allowed to use any mark, sign, or symbol that would produce a
false representation of someone else's goods or services.

Trademark law also extends to online activity, therefore domain names confront the same
challenges as trademarks. In one of the most well-known search engine cases, the Yahoo Inc.
Akash Arora7 case, the court found that the law of passing off applied to the domain name
because there was a similarity between the marks, which is an important aspect in the action
of passing off because there is a high likelihood of confusion and deception.
In Satyam Infoway Ltd. vs. Sifynet Solutions (P) Ltd., 8 the court outlined a three-part process
for bringing a passing-off case against a domain name.
1. It is an action conducted to protect the Plaintiff's goods and service reputation because
the defendant's product deceives the public into thinking they are buying Plaintiff's
product.
2. Misrepresentation is done with the malicious goal of deceiving the general population
for nefarious gain.
3. There is a high chance of likelihood.

The court also stated that if the domain name had all of the features of a trademark, an action
for passing off could be brought.

5
The Trade Marks Act, 1999, No. 47, Acts of Parliament, 1999 (India).
6
Hugh Weightman, House of Lords. The Singer Manufacturing Co. v. Loog, 31 (8) U. PA. L. REV. 509, 516 (1883).
7
Yahoo!, Inc. vs Akash Arora & Anr., (1999) IIAD Delhi 229 (India).
8
Satyam Infoway Ltd vs Siffynet Solutions Pvt. Ltd (2004) SCR 465 (India).

13
 II. CYBERSQUATTING

Cybersquatting is the act of enlisting an Internet space name that is probably going to be
needed by someone else. It includes enlistment of trademarks and exchange names as area
names by outsiders. Digital squatters (or dishonesty imitators) enroll exchange marks,
exchange names, business names etc. Cybersquatting happens where an unapproved
individual (a digital squatters) registers or uses an area name which incorporates a notable or
trustworthy trademark. Digital squatters benefit from the trademarks either by pitching the
spaces to approved substances or outsiders for impressive totals.
Digital squatters interest for offering area names is high. AltaVista.com was sold for $ 3.3
million and HeraldSun.com for $ 2.5 million. This shady business rehearse has been normal
in the USA since the beginning of the Internet. While thinking about whether as a trademark
utilize causes a probability of disarray, the area of the check's utilization inside the URL is of
extraordinary significance. Think about the accompanying model. On the off chance that
somebody made an unapproved utilization of "Volkswagen" in a SLD, for example,
www.volkswagen.com, such utilize would almost certainly prompt shopper disarray.
Notwithstanding, should "Volkswagen" be utilized in the third level area name, for example,
a host name for a sub-system or PC running under a PC facilitating an alternate SLD (e.g.
www.volkswagen.ucdavis.edu) the probability of customer disarray is diminished. Further,
when the trademark shows up regarding another source identifier, for example, "ucdavis," the
second source identifier puts individuals on notice that they are not getting to an authority
Volkswagen site, but instead a sub-system of the primary UC Davis organize. The above is a
case of making perplexity in the psyches of the buyers and in this way involving a
wrongdoing under the digital laws of cybersquatting.

14
 III. INTERNET CORPORATION FOR ASSIGNED NAMES AND NUMBERS
(ICANN)

Network Solution Inc. (NSI) was the whole and soul registrar of domain names around the
globe. But from the starting its operation and policies were criticized as there were no
alternatives or competitors for domain name holders to register their domain names, plus NSI
charged high fees for registering domain names and had poor customer service record by its
name. Further there being no alternatives for domain name holders, they were forced to opt
their services. There was no dispute resolution policy adopted by NSI, NSI delegated the
responsibility on the trademark holders that they have to bear the burden that their domain
names do not infringe on any other person rights.9
Around 1995 NSI launched its first come first serve policy where it allowed domain name
holders to register their domain names on first come first serve basis. When ever any dispute
arose between the complainant (trademark owner) and domain name holder the NSI Policy
allowed the trade mark owners to put their domain names on hold until the dispute was
resolved. NSI dispute resolution policy stated that f the domain name owner is challenged, he
or she may be able to prevent the domain name from being placed on hold by demonstrating
that either (1) the domain name was registered prior to the complainant's trademark or (2) the
domain name was registered after the complainant's trademark was registered (2), The
domain name holder was also the domain name's trademark holder.10
Among heavy criticism on NSI’s dispute resolution policy and it way of operation in
September 1998 Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) was
formed which was entrusted with the responsibility of central management of the domain
names in accordance with the white paper.11 NSI on the first instance rejected ICANN
authority but later they reached an agreement with ICANN termed as ICANN’s Registrar
Accreditation Agreement to recognize it authority. The best policy ICANN has implemented
till today is the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP).

9
Patrick D. Kelley, Emerging Patterns in Arbitration Under the Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution
Policy, Vol. 17, BTLJ 181, 194 (2002).
10
Komaitis, K. Trade mark law's increment through the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy, Vol.
6. JIPLP 553, 564. (2011).
11
Luke. A. Walker, ICANN's Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy, Vol. 15. BTLJ 289, 300
(2000).

15
 IV. UNIFORM DOMAIN NAME DISPUTE RESOLUTION POLICY (UDRP)

UDRP provides expediate administrative proceedings for the speedy resolution of domain
names disputes specifically arising from abusive registration of domain names. UDRP
proceeding is Initiated when a trademark owner (Complainant) files a complaint with the
ICANN approved dispute resolution service provider. Today there are 6 service providers 12
approved by ICANN which provides arbitration services for domain name dispute resolution.
The complainant selects the service provider and he is required to pay the service provider’s
fees. UDRP does not exclude the jurisdiction of mutual settlement, court proceedings or
arbitration. Further it also allows parties to initiate law suits, mutual settlement before during
and after the UDRP Proceedings. If a complaint is made against a domain name owner, the
owner is required by the rules of its domain name registration agreement to participate in
these procedures.
Under UDRP domain name owners shall submit to mandatory administrative proceedings if a
third-party claim that1. domain names are confusingly similar or identical to the trademark or
service mark, 2. In such domain name owner has no legitimate rights or interests and 3.
Domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The onus will fall on the shoulder
of the complainant to prove such elements for his complaint to be successful. Further the
domain name owners to defend their domain names they will have to prove 1. use or
preparation for demonstration for use of the domain name which is corresponding to the
domain name offering goods and services before the domain name owner was informed about
the existence of such dispute (2) common knowledge of the owner being known by the
domain name, even in the absence of trademark or service mark rights; or (3) a legitimate
noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, with no intent for commercial gain to mislead
consumers or tarnish the Complainant's trademark or service mark.13 The UDRP
Administrative Panel after giving its decision to cancel or transfer the domain name, the
domain name owner will have ten days to show that he has filed a law suit after the decision
of the panel. If he fails to show such documentation then the registrar will implement the
decision as given by the panel. The UDRP panel only provides thee remedy of transferring or
canceling of the domain name no other remedy is provided by them.

12
List of Dispute Resolution Service Providers, ICANN ( Nov. 17, 2021, 10:30 AM),
https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/providers-6d-2012-02-25-en.
13
Thomas H. Webster, Domain Name Proceedings and International Dispute Resolution, Vol 2. Bus. Law Int.
215, 224 (2001).

16
 V. CRITICISM OF UDRP

UDRP policy has been criticized over the years for it being biased towards the trademark
holders. It has been alleged that it is the complainant who pays the service providers fee,
hence the service providers institutions are biased towards the trademark holders. 14 Further in
many cases respondent do not show up for hearing and even do not file written submission
and attend the proceedings. Further there are allegations against the service providers stating
that there are different decisions by one member and three members panel in domain name
disputes. Further there is no appeal available under UDRP, their decisions cannot be
questioned and appealed, only remedy existing for domain name owners is law suit in
courts.15

14
Id 13.
15
Supra 9.

17
18
 VI. DOMAIN NAME AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS
The picking of a domain name has become a crucial business decision. You choose a space
name to make it easier for Internet users to find your company's website. Any number of "top
level domains," or "TLDs," can be used to register the names of organisations. The
"nonexclusive best level areas" ("GTLDs, such as.com, .net organisation and. information")
can be browsed. If a person qualifies, he can check over the specific and limited best level
areas (e.g, air for air travel and transport organizations, or, business for business endeavors).
One can likewise enroll for his space name under a "nation code top level area" ("CCTLD"),
for instance, .bn for Bulgaria, cn for China, ch for Switzerland.
There is an artificial scarcity of domain names due to the essential feature of unique mapping
between IP address and domain names, 16 as well as its capacity to identify and distinguish a
particular business or people. For example, two people with the same name x, cannot have
websites with the same domain name x within the same tld. Legal rights in names are derived
from three sources: trademark registration, which grants the legal right to use the name for
specific purposes within a defined geographical area; prolonged use of the name for trading
by some enterprise, which prevents others from misappropriating the name's trade reputation;
and a person's biological name. As a result, in addition to disputes between two individuals
over domain name claims, disputes may occur between two commercial entities, or between a
commercial entity and an individual, both of whom have an entitlement to the same name17.

16
Papiya Ghosh, Domain Name Disputes: An Economic Analysis of Some Court Cases in India, 47 (51) EPQ
52, 56 (2012).
17
Id 16.

19
 VI. ISSUES INVOLVED

The UDRP, the comparatively fast18 and inexpensive option, has overwhelmingly become the
favoured procedure for resolving domain name disputes." The UDRP, despite its extensive
use, is a poor system. It gives arbitrators too little instruction, a weakness that has resulted in
uneven findings on several critical domain name use issues, as well as concerns that certain
verdicts favour corporate trademark holders. Furthermore, to the extent that the UDRP has
established consistent dispute resolution principles, these principles are inapplicable to a
growing section of domain names acquired through registrars not accredited by ICANN or
through a country code authority that has not elected to bind its registrants to the UDRP19.

The core issue of dispute is the linkage between the domain name and the trademark. The absence of
connectivity between the system for registering trademarks on the one hand and the system for
registering trademarks on the other hand has increased the risk of such a conflict with the advent of
the internet. This problem is exacerbated when commercial enterprises request domain names that are
confusingly close to their registered trademarks or unregistered trade names, which frequently results
in legal conflicts. The following two realities contribute to these disagreements: first, the internet
transcends physical borders; anything on the internet is visible from everywhere and to anybody who
is connected to the internet. Secondly, unlike trademarks, which are exclusively distinctive in a
specified territory, domain names are unique globally. Because websites are globally
accessible, when one of two or more businesses with the same trademark or trade name
registers it as its domain name, it creates a conflict of interest between the parties because it
has the potential to cause customer confusion and, in some cases, result in the loss of
potential customers to one of the parties. One party may accuse the other of trademark
infringement or (trade name) dilution as a result of this. Infringement or dilution can also
occur when someone who has no legal right to a particular trade name or mark uses a domain
name that is similar to or a variant of someone else's registered trademark or trade name to
sell the same or unrelated product. There is a risk of trademark dilution even though there can
be no action for trademark infringement since the lines of business are sufficiently diverse.

18
Lisa M. Sharrock, The future of domain name dispute resolution: crafting practical international legal
solutions from within the UDRP framework, 51 (2) DUKE LAW J 817, 835 (2001).

19
Id 18.

20
 VII. LAWS AROUND THE WORLD

i. United States of America20

The United States overlooks its digital faults including the space name hunching down
violative norms with the recently built up, “Counter Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act
(ACPA)”, institutionalized in 1999, which inculcated for activity enlisting, trafficking in, or
utilizing an area name confusingly like, or dilutive of a trademark or individual name. It was
intended to defeat “digital squatters” who enlist internet space names containing trademarks
with no expectation of making a real site, rather offering an area name to the trademark
proprietor or an outsider. The critics of ACPA pointed out on the limited extent of the Act
and its capability to confine free discourse. Before its establishment, trademark proprietors
depended intensely in the Federal Trademark Dilution Act (FTDA) to sue area name
registrants. The FTDA was established in 1995 to a limited extent with the expectation to
control faulty space name handles. The administrative history of the FTDA particularly
makes reference to that trademark weakening in space names involved congressional
concerns strengthening the Act.
Under the ACPA, a trademark proprietor may take on account a space name registrant who –
(1) has a dishonest intent to benefit from the stamp and
(2) registers, traffickers , or utilizes an area name i.e. (an) indistinguishable or confusingly
like a particular stamp, (b) indistinguishable or confusingly like or dilutive of an acclaimed
check, or (c) is a trademark secured by 18 U.S.C. area 706 (marks including the Red Cross)
or 36 U.S.C. segment 220506 (marks identifying with the "Olympics")
The ACPA also gives that the trademark owner can record an"in rem" exertion against the
area name in the legal locale where the space name archivist, space name vault, or other
space name specialist enlisted or appointed the area name if –
(1) The space name abuses any honor of the trademark proprietors and
(2) the court finds that the owner (a) cannot get "in personam" ward over the existent who
might have been a appellant under 15U.S.C. member 1125 (d) (1); or (b) through due
imagination wasn't ready to discover a man who might have been a replier under 15U.S.C.
area 1125 (d) (1) by transferring a notice of the supposed violation and distributing
20
Martin Samson, The Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act: Key Information, INTERNET LIBRARY OF
LAW AND COURT DECISIONS (Nov. 18, 2021, 1:30 PM),
www.internetlibrary.com/publications/anticybsquattSamson9-05_art.cfm.

21
announcement of the exertion. This arrangement is formerly in a while employed, in any
case, on the grounds that numerous trademark proprietors can negotiate analogous issues
through a Uniform Domain Name Disagreement Resolution Policy (UDRP) continuing.

ii. UNITED KINGDOM

The law governing the security of The UK enrolled trademarks, whether used on the Internet,
or on merchandise, or on conventional publicized prints, is contained in the Trade Marks Act
1994. Exchange check assurance may likewise be accessible in the UK whether the stamp is
enrolled or unrecorded through the law on going off. Going off keeps one existent from
exploiting the altruism (notoriety) of someone differently by going off out of merchandise or
administrations analogous to those of (or being associated with) that existent. It applies also
to encroachment on the Internet or anywhere else. To indicate exchange stamp encroachment,
the proprietor of the enrolled trademark should demonstrate that the after exchange check is
being used 'throughout exchange'. This implies use by system for business, and not really use
as a trademark.
Under the UK law, regardless of whether the area name establishes an instrument of
extortion, it will be based upon the conditions of the case and whether the name is distinctive
to the point that it could signify just a single trafficker/merchant. For not any, one of a kind
name, the court will take a gander at different rudiments, including the goal of the registrant
and their application of the space name, to decide if false action has passed.
In regard of an activity for trademark encroachment, the application of the space name by the
replier must be over the span of exchange. It was affirmed in One In A Million that the
application of an exchange stamp over the span of the matter of an expert trafficker/merchant
to make area names more important and disengaging cash from the trademark proprietor, it is
an application throughout exchange. The insignificant holding of an area name (to sell it to
the highest bidder) could consequently comprise exchange stamp encroachment. Alternate
factors needed to indicate exchange stamp encroachment should likewise be appeared.
Exchange stamp security may likewise be accessible in the UK whether the check is enlisted
or not registered through the law on going off. Going off keeps one from exploiting the
altruism of someone differently by going off, his products or administrations just like those of
that person. It applies also to encroachment on the Internet or anywhere else.

22
The most imperative cure accessible for exchange stamp encroachment, is a directive to stop
the unapproved application of the check. Different cures incorporate damages or a record of
the respondent's benefits from the encroachment.

The valid procedure for testing the unapproved application of an exchange stamp on the
Internet in the UK is accessible through the conventional conditioning for exchange check
encroachment or going off. Despite of the fact that the UK courts have for the utmost part for
trademark proprietors in area name debate, there aren't veritably numerous court choices on
whether the inappreciable application of an exchange stamp on the Internet through metatags
and watchwords can establish exchange check use and encroachment or going off.

iii. INDIA21

There is no Domain Name Protection Law in India, and digital hunching down cases are
usually chosen under Trade Mark Act, 1999. The courts, however have drawn a demarcation
between exchange stamp and area name, wherein the Supreme Court in Satyam Infoway Ltd
v. Sifynet Solutions Pvt Ltd, held that, “qualification lies in the way in which both the two
work. A trademark is secured by the laws of a particular nation wherein such trademark
might be enlisted. Thus, an exchange check may have different enrollments in numerous
nations throughout the world. Also, since the web takes into consideration access with no
geographical confinement, a space name is conceivably available anyhow of the
topographical area of the buyers.” The result of this eventuality for all-inclusive network is
not just that an area name would bear overall restrictiveness yet in addition that public laws
may be inadequate to viably insure a space name. Despite the fact that space names aren't
characterized under any Indian law or are secured under any unique order, the Courts in India
have connected Trade Marks Act, 1999 to similar cases.
Like in different cases under Trademarks Act, 1999 the sort of reliefs which are accessible
are-
1. Cure of encroachment
2. Cure of going off
In India casualties of digital hunching down have very less alternatives to battle digital
hunching. These includes, sending instant letters to the digital squatter, bringing a mediation
continuing under ICANN's tenets, or getting a claim state or government court.

21
Singh & Associates, India: Cyber Squatting Laws in India, MONDAQ (Nov. 18, 2021, 1:20 PM),
https://www.mondaq.com/india/trademark/208840/cyber-squatting-laws-in-india.

23
A case could be registered with the authority, dealt with by the National Internet Exchange of
India (NIXI) who conveys the issue to quick track debate goals process whereby choices are
exchanged inside thirty days of documenting a protest.
In spite, that there is no legitimate pay under the IT Act. Most squatters anyway work under
garb of cloud names.

24
 VIII. CASES AROUND THE WORLD

i. Colgate Palmolive & Co. vs. Anchor Health and Beauty Care Pvt. Ltd. 22
The Plaintiffs were supplying tooth powder in cans with a unique look and colour
scheme under the Trademark "Colgate." The defendants allegedly used the colour
combination on their cans for a comparable line of products. Anchor, according to
Colgate, had adopted comparable trade dress in terms of design, get-up, and colour
combination with the clear goal of exploiting the plaintiff's goodwill and reputation.
The Plaintiffs claimed that the red and white trade dress had gained trademark status
and that they had earned exclusive ownership of it.

Anchor maintained that the word mark was the most important aspect of the label
mark, not the colour scheme or general appearance, and that because the two
trademarks in dispute, Colgate and Anchor, were so unlike, Colgate could not claim
protection under the label's colour scheme. The Court determined that the competitor
containers were an instance of passing-off based on the general likeness of the two
items' trade dress.

High Court has given a decision in the favour of plaintiff as the Court determined that
the defendant's trade dress had a similar look and appearance to the plaintiff's
trademark. Court held that “Trade dress protection is also available under the
Trademark Law, which provides broad protection against imitation or deceptive
resemblances of trade dress, just as trademarks are the soul for identifying goods as
to their source or design; and as such, it is likely to inflict confusion in the minds of
unwary customers, especially those who have been using the product for a long time”.
While granted an injunction in Colgate's favour, the Court stated that the standard in
such circumstances is whether there is a probability of confusion or deceit in the
minds of naïve customers, "regardless of trade name dissimilarities."

ii. Britannia Industries Ltd. v. ITC Ltd. 23

ITC Limited brought a legal claim against
the appellant, Britannia Industries Limited, alleging violation of the copyright of the
trade dress of the respondents' Sunfeast Farmlite All Good Digestive Biscuits, which
22
Colgate Palmolive & Co. vs. Anchor Health and Beauty Care Pvt. Ltd., 2003 (27) PTC 478 (Del).
23
Britannia Industries Ltd. v. ITC Ltd., 2017 (70) PTC 66 (Del).

25
 contain no added sugar or maida. Court stated that colours and colour combinations
are not inherently unique and also said that the appropriation of and exclusivity
asserted in relation to a get-up, particularly a colour combination, rests on a different
footing than a trademark or a trading name. Court said that it should therefore be
difficult for someone to claim exclusive right over a colour combination, especially if
it has only been in use for a short time.

An order may be placed in his favour only after it has been proven, maybe even prima
facie, that the colour combination has become characteristic (distinctive) of a person's
goods. Court believed that this is not the situation right now and they don't need to
look at the other aspects of misrepresentation or the risk of injury if the initial element
of passing off isn't proved, in our opinion.

iii. In Honda Motors Co. Ltd. v. Mr. Charanjit Singh and Ors 24 case, the defendant
company was using the trade name HONDA for 'Pressure Cookers' that they
manufacture in India, and even after the registrar refused their application for
registration, they continued to use it and requested for registration again, prompting
plaintiff to file this lawsuit. Plaintiff is a well-known manufacturer of automobiles,
motorcycles, generators, and other electrical products with a global reach. Honda Siel
Cars India Ltd, a joint venture with the Siddharth Shriram Group, is doing business in
India.

Plaintiff has proven that his business or commodities have developed a reputation,
and that his trade name has become synonymous with his goods, and that the general
public links the plaintiff's name with them. Respondents' use of the trademark
HONDA causes deceit or confusion in the eyes of the general public, resulting in loss
or injury to the plaintiff's business, reputation, goodwill, and fair name. As a result,
the court has barred the defendants from using the trademark HONDA in connection
with pressure cookers or any other items or trade mark/marks that are identical to or
deceptively similar to the plaintiff's trademark HONDA and to do anything that may
be seen as passing off the plaintiff's goods.

24
Honda Motors Co. Ltd. v. Mr. Charanjit Singh and Ors., 2003(26)PTC1(Del)

26
 iv. In the case of Smithkline Beecham v. V.R. Bumtaria 25 The plaintiff sought a
permanent injunction to prevent the defendant from infringing on its registered
trademark ARIFLO, which is used in the pharmaceutical preparations, by infringing
on it, passing off, causing damages, and so on. In India, the defendants were
marketing a similar medicine under the name ACIFLO. Plaintiffs were not conducting
business in India for the specific product, but maintained that because their
advertising were published in medical publications, they had a trans-border
reputation, and defendants should be barred from using a similar brand that deceived
buyers.

According to the court, just placing an advertising in a journal does not generate a
trans-border reputation. Such a reputation, if it exists, is limited to a certain group of
individuals, namely, those who subscribe to the specialist magazines in question, and
cannot be considered to spread to the broader public. As a result, any negative impact
on the company in such a circumstance cannot be considered "passing off." Despite
the fact that the case ended in a settlement, the defendant agreed to acknowledge the
plaintiffs' exclusive right to use the mark ARIFLO in India and overseas, as well as
not to produce pharmaceutical preparations under the mark ACIFLO or any other
mark identical or similar to ARIFLO.

v. Weber-Stephen Products Co v Armitage Hardware & Building Supply 26 A

trademark case was filed by a manufacturer against a merchant who had registered the
domain names webergrills.com and other domain names that included the company's
trademarks. One day before filing the case, the manufacturer started a UDRP process.
The store requested that the UDRP action be declared nonbinding and that the Court
matter be stayed awaiting UDRP determination.

The Weber court stated, based partly on the UDRP's text, that the policy
acknowledges the possibility of parallel judicial procedures and that UDRP panel
judgments are not intended to be binding on courts. The Court said that the conclusion
of the UDRP hearings did not bind it and court granted the requested stay.

25
Smithkline Beecham v. V.R. Bumtaria, MANU/DE/2890/2005.
26
Weber-Stephen Prods Co v Armitage Hardware & Bldg Supply, 54 U.S.P.Q.2d 1766
(N.D. Ill. 2000).

27
 vi. Satyam Infoway Ltd vs Siffynet Solutions Pvt. Ltd27
Satyam Infoway Ltd., the appellant in the Supreme Court case, claimed that the
respondent, Sifynet Solutions Pvt. Ltd., had registered and managed a domain name
that was confusingly similar to Satyam Infoway's. Satyam Infoway stated that it had
registered many domain names related to its company with the Internet Corporation
for Assigned Names and Numbers and the World Intellectual Property Organization
in 1999. These included sifynet.com, sifymall.com, and sifyrealestate.com. It claimed
that the term "Sify" – which was created by combining pieces of its company name
"Satyam Infoway" – was a "fanciful" phrase with significant market goodwill.
Meanwhile, Sifynet Solutions began using the term "Siffy" in their domain names
(siffynet.com and siffynet.net), asserting to have registered them with ICANN in
2001.

Satyam Infoway claimed that Sifynet Solutions was attempting to pass its services off
as Satyam Infoway's by using a confusingly similar phrase in its domain name.
Satyam Infoway alleged that this would generate confusion among relevant
customers, who would mistake Sifynet Solutions' services for those of Satyam
Infoway. Sifynet Solutions argued that, unlike a trademark, a domain name
registration did not grant an intellectual property interest(IPR) in the name. It asserted
that a domain name is only a computer address that allows consumers to communicate
with the business's owner, and that it gives no similar property rights in the same.
There was no regulation in India that particularly handled domain name disputes due
to a gap in the country's intellectual property laws. As a result, members of the
Internet community have petitioned the courts to use trade mark law as a viable means
of resolving their conflicts. The High Court replied by ruling that domain names
might be effectively protected under the Indian law of trade marks' concept of passing
off.

Supreme Court ruled that, while there is no statute in India that specifically addresses
domain names, they are covered by the Trade Marks Act. It went on to say that a

27
Satyam Infoway Ltd. Vs Sifynet Solutions Pvt. Ltd., AIR 2004 SC 3540.

28
 domain name has all the characteristics of a trademark. As a result, it was determined
that allowing the respondent to continue using the domain names would most likely
cause confusion among the general public. A user's browser may be redirected to a
website with an illegitimate domain name. And if he doesn't locate the goods or
services linked with the mark when he gets to the website, he could conclude the
actual owner is lying about the claims. The legal owner would suffer a loss as a
consequence, and his goodwill and brand reputation would suffer as a result. As a
result, the Supreme Court issued an order in favour of the appellants, prohibiting the
respondents from continuing to use the domain names in their commercial dealings.

The Supreme Court of India refers to international organisations such as the World
Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and commercial agencies such as the
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) in its ruling. The
Court also combines a wholly private dispute resolution mechanism i.e UDRP with
national legislation in a somewhat bold step that purports to remedy a legal gap. In
doing so, the Supreme Court of India exemplifies a contemporary ruling in an
interconnected world, solidifying India's position in the worldwide judicial network.

29
30
 IX. CHANGES REQUIRED IN EXISTING IP FOR MORE SUSTAINABLE
DEVELOPMENT

When it comes to filing litigation, passing off suits has a disadvantage. While a suit
for infringement under section 134 of the Act can be filed in a District Court / High
Court (enjoying Ordinary Original Civil jurisdiction) where the registered proprietor
can file suit in the local limits of where he or she actually and voluntarily resides,
carries on business, or works for profit during the institution of the suit. However,
under Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a passing off suit must follow the
ordinary norms of jurisdiction, which implies that a passing off suit can only be filed
in a District Court.

Further Passing off suits face another drawback when it comes to establishing
goodwill. The harm caused or potentially caused to the goodwill is a key component
of a passing off action. As a result, the burden of proof for an unregistered trademark
is higher than for a registered trademark. While a legal right is already accessible to
the plaintiff in an infringement case, an unregistered trademark user does not have this
right.

Thus, this can be changed by allowing unregistered trademarks, a certain extent of

protection under the Act is a relief to many users who otherwise wouldn't have been
able to get any sort of legal remedy for the violation of their marks.

31
32
 X. LINKAGE WITH OBJECTIVES OF NATIONAL INTELLECTUAL
PROPERTY RIGHTS POLICY, 2016

The laws for passing off as provided under the Trademark Act, 1999 are applicable in the
case of passing off in the domain name. Even the unregistered trademark holders can file a
passing off suit to protect their right. Trademark law provides opportunity to stop any person
to use their registered trademark, a registered trademark holder can file a suit for
infringement. Trademark law provides remedy of passing off to unregistered trademark
holder, they can file a passing of suit in order to stop any person to use their trademark. Such
opportunity helps to fulfill objective 6 of National IPR Policy, 2016 - strengthen the
enforcement of IP laws and adjudication of disputes pertaining to domain name. It helps in
Adjudication of the disputes not only involving unregistered trademark just like disputes
involving registered trademark are resolved in case of infringement. Passing off is that no one
can represent their goods to be that of another person. Laws for passing off also helps to
fulfill objective 3 of National IPR Policy, 2016 – Legal and Legislative Framework as this
law balances the interest of right owners with larger public interest. The rights of trademarks
owner are protected as well as the interest of public at large is taken care of as they are saved
from the being deceived.

33
34
 XI. LINKAGE WITH SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOAL 16

UDRP is an international dispute resolution process for the disputes pertaining to domain
names. Under UDRP the disputes are referred to the Arbitration and Mediation Center which
makes the resolution process highly time effective as compared to the ordinary litigation. The
process is transparent, WIPO posts all the details regarding the case on its website. Resorting
to alternate dispute resolution would make the resolution process faster which would be cost
effective for the parties to the dispute. Passing off action for the domain name provides a
protection to unregistered trademarks as well. This resolution process helps in fulfilling
sustainable development goal 16 i.e. Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions. As under UDRP,
the dispute is referred to arbitration or mediation center which are effective and accountable
helps in promoting peace in the society by speedy resolution of the disputes. Passing off
action provides access to justice by protecting even the unregistered trademarks.

35
 XII. CONCLUSION & SUGGESTION

With the penetration of the internet and the proliferation of businesses and their
presence on it, it is extremely important to preserve and safeguard an online
business’s trademark/brand name. Domain Name Disputes have revolutionised the
web in the same way that trademark infringement has. Because Domain Names can be
accessed from anywhere on the planet, it has become easier for brand owners to
identify online trademark infringement rather than on- ground infringements, due to
artificial intelligence and numerous techniques. It has been observed that judicial
precedents favour the trademark owner or prior user of the trademark, therefore filing
a Domain Name Dispute Complaint in the event of a claimed infringement is a good
tactic. The existing body of law is insufficient since it frequently lags behind
technology. Solutions must be put together from a range of sources, avoiding the old
practise of relying solely on laws that are “commands of the sovereign” in the
positivist sense. The Supreme Court of India refers to international organisations such
as the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and commercial bodies such
as the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) in their
ruling. The Court also in some cases combines a wholly private dispute resolution
mechanism (the UDRP) with national laws in a somewhat bold step that appears to
remedy a legal void. Along these lines, a domain name dispute necessitates a strong,
consistent, and immediate assurance under all legal frameworks throughout the world,
including India. This can be accomplished by bringing all of the nations under a large
umbrella enactment that is universally applicable to them, or by making a significant
change in their own civil code that makes it mandatory to follow.

36
 XIII. INDIVIDUAL OPINION

i. Ishika Rajoria

With the advent of the internet and the proliferation of businesses and their presence over it,
it has never been more necessary to preserve and safeguard an online business's
trademark/brand name. Domain Name Disputes have revolutionised the internet in the same
way that trademark infringement has. Because Domain Names can be accessed from
anywhere in the world, it has become easier for brand owners to discover online trademark
infringement rather than on-ground infringements, thanks to artificial intelligence and
numerous techniques. It has been observed that judicial precedents favour the trademark
owner or prior user of the trademark, therefore filing a Domain Name Dispute Complaint in
the case of an alleged infringement is a good strategy.
Complainants usually win under the UDRP if they can show common law trademark rights in
the name at issue. The bigger the personal name's renown, the better the complaint's
prospects of success. The more this celebrity is linked to any form of commercial exploitation
of the name, the more probable the Complainant will prevail.
The UDRP has received a lot of positive feedback from commentators. In comparison to
litigation, the process is quick, efficient, and economical. "Although the policy's drafters may
not have meant the policy to shield celebrities per se, it has fulfilled this purpose...and the
ensuing case precedent largely benefits celebrities," one writer said. "if adopted properly, the
regulation serves as an efficient remedy against abusive registrations while preventing
overreaching by trademark holders," another analyst said.As a result, while the UDRP is an
efficient mechanism for preventing the use of a personal name within a domain name,
Complainants' common law trademark rights are not guaranteed.

ii. Kapil Shrivastava

For UDRP and ICANN:

Because of its low cost and relative ease of use, the UDRP has quickly become the world's
most popular domain name dispute resolution system. Despite this, the international system is
not yet totally uniform. The arbitrators' decisions under the UDRP aren't always consistent,
which causes uncertainty, thwarts reliance interests, and raises suspicions of prejudice.

37
Furthermore, the UDRP's application is mostly confined to disputes involving domain names
registered through ICANN-approved gTLD registrars, leaving a growing segment of domain
names unprotected. These issues, however, are not insurmountable. The inconsistency
problem, as well as the associated bias concerns, can be addressed by changing the policy to
offer clarity and ensuring that fair uses are acknowledged. The UDRP's restricted application
is a more difficult issue to address because ICANN is unable to do it directly. ICANN can
mitigate the effects of nonconforming registrars by working with them to the extent
practicable to urge the adoption of the UDRP or a policy similar to it. Furthermore, ICANN
can address the issue of restricted application by enhancing its own image, regaining control
and influence over the worldwide domain name dispute resolution mechanism. ICANN can
shape the UDRP into a fair, efficient, and uniform international dispute resolution mechanism
by taking above stated steps.
For India:
The growing number of domain name conflicts around the world puts a serious strain on
Icann's domain name registration policy, which is based on a first-come, first-served basis.
Though several countries have or are formulating their own laws to address this issue, India
still lacks dedicated legislation in this area. As a result, a detailed discussion of the problem is
required, followed by references to international organisations such as WIPO and private
bodies such as ICAAN that are involved in the formulation of IP law.

iii. Manav Bhagat

My opinion is in regards to the UDRP. To increase the efficiency of UDRP, an appeal

process or a clause should be enacted in the UDRP establishing a appeal mechanism available
to both the parties complainant and domain name owners where they can challenge the
decision of the administrative panel and the dispute resolution service providers. Since
previous decisions of the panel are not binding upon them, it should be made biding upon
them while making decisions in the future cases having similar facts and circumstances.
UDRP is not granting nay damages or compensation to the trademark owners which should
be enacted in the policy as the trademark owners suffer huge amount of loss due to less traffic
on their sites due to cyber squatters confusing domain names confusing internet consumers.
Further three-member panel should be made as a standard practice while adjudicating the
domain name disputes where each party selects one arbitrator from the list provided by
ICANN and the main arbitrator being appointed from the list of arbitrators approved by

38
ICANN by ICANN itself. Further I think that fees of the service provider should be paid
equally by both parties not just the complainant who files the complaint.

iv. Aditya Chhangani

I would be writing my opinion by confining myself with Indian perspective of passing off
and cybersquatting. After analyzing lots of judicial decisions of Indian courts on domain
name disputes under trademark law, after globalization and cheap access of internet domain
names will be increasing day by day, which means more and more chances of domain name
disputes arising frequently and no specific legislation to address such dispute. I believe that a
specific legislation should be enacted to deal with domain name disputes, a policy in the line
of UDRP should also be enacted and implemented in India to tackle such issue and
arbitration should me made as a primary mode for resolving such disputes.

***

39