Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

deliberate and ยท take up the issues highlighted above on the ICANN and other similar internet governance forums in the future."

ii. In respect of second aspect, i.e., global mechanism pertaining to Domain Name Dispute Resolution, the MeitY status report captures the existing UDRP and INDRP policies. In addition, it is also stated that in the US, apart from the ICANN policy on Domain Name Dispute Resolution provisions of the Anti- cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, 1999 can also be invoked.

iii. On the third aspect of implementation of court orders by the DNRs, the status report sets out Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, along Rules 3, 4, 6 & 10 of the IP (Blocking) Rules, 2009. On the said aspect, the conclusion of MeitY is as under:

"22. That, it is submitted that in the present case, if any DNR repeatedly does not comply with the directions of the Hon'ble Court, the same may be construed as a violation of public order and considered relatable grounds for ordering the blocking of the website/URL of such non-compliant DNR by 2023:DHC:2305 the competent court under section 69A of the IT Act, 2000, if the competent court so directs. However, it is respectfully submitted that such blocking may have some adverse effect on the registrations of the non-compliant DNR, details of which are provided below."

Thus, the submission of MeitY is that if there is 'repeated' non- compliance of court orders by any DNR, in that case its conduct can be construed as a violation of public order and the website/URL of the non-compliant DNR itself can be blocked by the court under Section 69A of the IT Act.

iv. On the fourth aspect of the impact of blocking websites of DNRs, which is primarily a sequitur of the suggestion made by MeitY on the third aspect, concern has been expressed by MeitY that various domain name registrants could be inconvenienced in accessing services of renewals, transfers, record updates, name update etc., if the website/URL of Domain Name Registrars are blocked.

9. The issues raised by MeitY in its status report as also the issues being considered by this Court on behalf of several IP owners and DNRs, raise various questions in respect of how to give effect to orders passed by Indian Court, especially by DNRs, who specifically take a stand that they would only be bound by orders passed by the competent Courts within their own jurisdiction.

10. Considering the stand of MeitY and the provisions of the applicable laws, the counsels may make their submissions on the next date of hearing as to the manner in which final orders can be passed in these suits so as to ensure that the orders of injunction, which are passed in respect of infringing domain names are given effect to by DNRs and all other authorities, in a manner so as to ensure that more and more consumers are not misled.