Decoding the JioHotstar domain saga: Unravelling cyber squatting and the ‘extortion’ attempt by the ‘dreamer’

By
Anurag
-
0
348
Developer registers JioHotstar.com domain, now faces legal action for cybersquatting after the Jio-Disney+ Hotstar merger.
A Delhi-based app developer who claimed to have "hypothesized" the Jio and Disney+ Hotstar merger registers the domain "JioHotstar.com" before the official announcement. The developer now faces legal action from Reliance for cybersquatting and demands for payment to fund his Cambridge studies. (Image Source: Dall-E/Jio)

On 23rd October, a Delhi-based app developer, who identified himself as a dreamer, uploaded a page on the domain name ‘jiohotstar.com’. This occurred just hours after the official announcement of the name to be adopted by Jio following the merger of ‘JioCinema’ and ‘Disney+ Hotstar’. On the page, the “dreamer” claimed that in 2023, he came across news reports suggesting that Disney+ was planning to sell its Indian streaming service along with streaming rights (if any) to a competitor. He asserted that he had “hypothesised” that Viacom 18 (owned by Reliance) would be the only competitor in the market capable of buying Hotstar from Disney+.

Based on this “hypothesis”, he claimed to have bought the domain name “JioHotstar.com”. The rationale for choosing the name was that when Jio acquired the music streaming service Saavn, they rebranded it as JioSaavn. He speculated, “If they acquire Hotstar, they might rename it JioHotstar.com.” His speculation came true on 23rd October.

He then shared a heartwarming story, explaining that in 2021, while working on a project that was selected for the Cambridge University Accelerate program, he had been offered a full degree programme in entrepreneurship by Cambridge but could not afford it. He wrote, “When I saw this domain become available, I felt things might just fall into place. My intention in buying this domain was simple: if this merger happens, I might be able to fulfil my dream of studying at Cambridge.”

A feel-good story that backfired by a “dreamer” who cybersquatted JioHostar.com.

Following this, he asked Jio to fund his education, stating that for a “multi-billion” dollar company like Reliance, “this would be a minor expense”. He believed that the domain could help fund his education.

The internet exploded with people calling him a genius, a dreamer, and other flattering names. However, things did not unfold as he had hoped. On 24th October, he updated the webpage, informing that a Reliance executive, identified as Ambujesh Yadav, AVP, Commercials, had contacted him. He requested £93,345 from Jio, claiming it would cover the tuition fees for an EMBA programme. I checked, and this was indeed the exact tuition fee. I will come back to this point later as he clearly did not think it through.

Regardless, he mentioned that his request was denied, and Yadav informed him that Jio was taking legal action against him.

Jio denied his request and said they will take legal action.

He wrote, “I hope they will reconsider this kind request. I wish such a large group could help. Thank you to all who shared and sent kind words. I don’t have the power to stand against Reliance. I don’t feel I infringed any trademark when I bought this in 2023, since JioHotstar was not even in existence at that time. Nobody had trademarked JioHotstar when I bought it. I might automatically lose access to this domain in a few hours. If any legal professional could help, I would be grateful.”

Now, if we take his story at face value, it all feels like a plan that could have come together, if, and only if, Reliance had seen it as a PR opportunity and paid his tuition fees. But everything that glitters is not gold, and this story is not GOLD either. I am going to break it down step-by-step to make it easier for everyone to understand.

The hypothesis story is all made up

The unnamed dreamer claimed that he “hypothesised” such a merger could happen, expecting people to believe that he was unaware of any talks between Reliance and Disney+ Hotstar. However, this is not the case. There are two key factors to consider: the date of registration and the date of the news reports that mentioned Reliance and Disney+ Hotstar were in talks for a possible merger.

Here is a screenshot of the Whois data for the domain JioHotstar.com. Note the date—it is 20th September 2023 and time is 9:18 AM. Domaintools show time in UTC.

Source: Domaintools.

I used worldtimebuddy to convert time to IST and it came out to be around 2:30 PM.

Source: Worldtimebuddy.

On 19th September 2023 at 8:30 AM IST, DNA published a report suggesting that Reliance might be a potential buyer of Disney+ Hotstar’s Indian business and that talks were being held.

Source: DNA

Later, on 20th and 21st September, multiple media houses reported the same.

Source: Google.



It is evident that this wasn’t merely a hypothesis but a calculated move. He recognised that Jio had the upper hand, saw reports of ongoing talks, and made a strategic decision to register the domain. In my opinion, while he may not have considered the term explicitly, it seems he aimed to ‘extort’ as much money as possible from Jio in the event the merger happened. The first year of .com domain registration typically costs less than ₹1,000, and he renewed it for another year, so his total investment was likely under ₹2,000. In return, he sought £93,345 or ₹1,01,69,078.98 (one crore, one lakh, sixty-nine thousand, seventy-eight rupees and ninety-eight paise) based on today’s exchange rate.

Source: Google

If Jio had paid, he would have successfully become a crorepati without ever needing to go on “Kaun Banega Crorepati”! Jokes aside, his ‘extortion’ plan failed.

Dear dreamer, tuition fee is not enough

Now, let’s address the tuition fee aspect. He claimed that he wanted the money to fund his education. I believe he quickly crafted this story to present himself as a “Robin Hood” figure, claiming he did nothing wrong. However, he failed to read the full details of Cambridge University’s EMBA programme. The amount he requested only covered the tuition fees. It was clearly stated that he would need an additional £7,000 and £150 for other expenses. Moreover, there would be costs for food and other necessities. Given that he claims to come from a financially struggling family, how was he planning to cover the rest of the expenses? He should have taken another hour or so to calculate more thoroughly.

Source: Cambridge University

The right approach would have been to contact the university for scholarships and loans. He could have also approached a bank for an educational loan. There are so many legitimate ways to fulfil his dream, but instead, he chose to attempt to ‘extort’ money from none other than the Ambanis.

The legal side of the JioHotstar domain saga

Now coming to the legal side of the JioHotstar domain saga, the “dreamer” mentioned that Jio was going to take legal action against him and he might lost access to domain soon. How is it possible? There are few points that I am going to write down as per my 20-year-long experience in the domain industry and while doing that, answer some of the most asked questions on social media about it.

The first thing we need to understand is that he registered the domain over a year ago, well before the “JioHotstar” brand existed. On the surface, it may seem like he hasn’t done anything wrong, as the trademark didn’t exist when he registered the domain. However, trademark law, particularly when it comes to domain names, is more nuanced. Even if a domain name predates a trademark, registering a domain with the intention of profiting from a future trademark is seen as acting in “bad faith.” Courts typically view such actions as an attempt to monetise someone else’s intellectual property, and they tend to side with the trademark owner in these cases.

Cybersquatting and the concept of bad faith

Cybersquatting, or the act of registering domains similar to well-known trademarks with the intent of profiting from them, is considered unlawful under Indian law. Though India does not have a specific law on cybersquatting, courts often rely on the Trade Marks Act, 1999. Under this law, cybersquatting is treated as an infringement, especially if the registrant’s intention is to confuse consumers or extort money from the trademark owner.

For instance, in the Satyam Infoway Ltd. v. Sifynet Solutions Pvt. Ltd. (2004) case, the Supreme Court ruled that domain names are not just internet addresses but are business identifiers, granting them the same protection as trademarks. In this case, Satyam Infoway won against a cybersquatter, and the domain was ordered to be transferred to the rightful owner​.

Similarly, in Arun Jaitley v. Network Solutions Pvt. Ltd. (2011), the Delhi High Court ruled in favour of Arun Jaitley, who sought to acquire a domain registered under his own name. The court found that the defendant had registered the domain with the intention of extracting monetary gain, a classic case of cybersquatting. The court enforced ICANN rules to transfer the domain name back to Jaitley​.

Courts ruling in favour of trademark owners

Indian courts have consistently ruled in favour of trademark owners when domains are registered in bad faith. In the Hindustan Unilever Ltd. v. Endurance Domains Technology (2020) case, the Bombay High Court noted that domain names, much like trademarks, serve as identifiers and should be protected. The court also highlighted that registering a domain in bad faith—whether or not the trademark existed at the time—can lead to legal repercussions, including transferring the domain to the rightful trademark owner​.

Other notable cases are

  • Tata Sons Limited vs Mr. Manu Kishori & Ors
  • Rediff Communication Limited vs Cyberbooth & Another
  • Yahoo!, Inc. vs Akash Arora & Anr
  • YouTube LLC vs Rohit Kohli
  • Satyam Infoway Ltd vs Sifynet Solutions
  • Google LLC vs gmail.co.in

These cases highlight the importance of intention behind domain registration. Courts take the view that if someone registers a domain with the aim of holding it for ransom, once the trademark becomes valuable, it is a clear act of cybersquatting. Therefore, even though “JioHotstar” wasn’t a thing at the time of registration, his actions can still be interpreted as an attempt to profit unfairly from Jio’s eventual use of the name.

By anticipating a future trademark and attempting to sell the domain for a significant sum, he entered murky legal waters. Courts do not look kindly upon such acts, which is why they tend to side with trademark holders in these situations.

Recent updates in the case

Please note that this section is an addition to the original article. The article has been updated on 26th October 2024.

On 24th October, at around 10 PM, I noticed that the website’s page went blank. For a moment, it seemed that the saga had concluded, but it had not.

Later that night, at around 1:30 AM on 25th October, I observed a new message on the website. Some so-called lawyers and experts “advised” him to hold onto the domain, asserting that he was doing nothing illegal. However, he stated he would release it if he received a legal notice from Jio.

Yet again, his intentions to make money from it overpowered his reason. On 25th October, at around 10:30 AM, I noticed an updated message on the website. The “dreamer” had now listed the domain for ₹12 lakhs on NameCheap, urging anyone who could afford it and was outside the jurisdiction of Indian courts to buy it.

Another update was visible on the website on 26th October, around 8:00 AM. The page was revised, suggesting that two kids from Dubai had bought the domain—with, of course, the involvement of their parents.

Throughout these two days, I gathered additional information from a legal perspective, speaking to several experts in the domain industry, including Ankur Raheja, a Domain Name Lawyer & Panellist. Ankur, who has 20 years of experience in domain law, has handled numerous Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy (UDRP) cases.

What is UDRP and how does it operate?

The UDRP, managed by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), is the main mechanism for resolving domain disputes, especially when allegations of cybersquatting arise. ICANN, the international body overseeing domain names and IP addresses, introduced UDRP in 1999 to protect trademark owners from domain squatters who register names intending to profit from well-known brands.

Under UDRP rules, if a domain is found to be registered in “bad faith”—where the registrant aimed to deceive or exploit an existing trademark—it may be legally reassigned to the rightful owner. The process is relatively simple, involving a series of steps. First, the complainant, usually a trademark holder, files a claim through a UDRP-approved provider, such as the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). This complaint must establish three essential elements: the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark, the registrant has no legitimate interest in it, and the domain was registered and is used in bad faith. The domain registrant is then given the chance to respond and defend their registration.

A panel of experts assesses the evidence and issues a decision, which may lead to the domain being transferred if the allegations are validated. UDRP disputes operate outside traditional courts, offering a faster and often more economical path to domain recovery. However, it’s important to note that the scope of UDRP is limited—it does not address broader legal damages, nor does it prevent registrants from taking the matter to court if they disagree with the UDRP panel’s ruling.

Understanding the recent UDRP case filed by Jio

To bolster the case for JioHostar.com, it would be prudent to examine the recent UDRP case that Jio has filed against the owner of jioaicloud.com. Here, the domain name incorporates the trademark “Jio.” The case, which was registered very recently, remains active, though details are currently unavailable.

Source: WIPO

Clearing JioHostar trademark confusion

Many social media users, who either claim expertise or rely on personal interpretations, argue that JioHotstar was “NOT” a trademark when the “dreamer” registered the domain. They claim that since the trademark came into effect only after the merger, the “dreamer” has every right to the domain.

However, Ankur, a domain name lawyer, reiterates what I have maintained throughout the case. “Jio” and “Hotstar” are established trademarks with longstanding reputations. “During my research, I found that news of the potential merger surfaced on 19th September 2023. The anonymous registrant did not register the domain on mere speculation; it was a calculated move. According to UDRP rules, the domain was registered in bad faith to capitalise on the trademark,” Ankur explained, affirming what I had previously noted in this article.

He added, “Also, Jio and Hotstar are well-known trademarks. You cannot use these trademarks in any domain. Even if JioHotstar itself was not considered a trademark in the UDRP filing, both Jio and Hotstar could file a separate or combined case under UDRP. In any scenario, the domain would likely be reassigned to the rightful owner, Jio, within three months at most.”

Ankur also pointed out that Jio would likely favour UDRP as it is quicker than civil litigation. “UDRP resolves cases in three months max. In civil courts, it could take years. So, Jio would be wise to pursue the UDRP path to secure the domain.”

Ankur expressed a similar sentiment in a discussion with Jay Paudyal, a seasoned domain investor of 25 years. The discussion can be seen here.

Understanding PVT-INOX matter

In 2023, a similar case came up in UDRP following the merger of PVR INOX. Ankur shared the case details and asked me to look into the case. In the matter, it was held that “It is likely that the Respondents learned of the merger of the Complainants and took an opportunity to unfairly profit from the likelihood of association with the Complainants’ trademarks by registering domain names corresponding to the combination of the Complainants’ two trademarks.”

Understanding the case in detail

In WIPO Domain Name Dispute Case No. D2023-0015, PVR Limited and INOX Leisure Limited, two of India’s largest cinema chains, filed a complaint against Bak J-seon, James, and PAK PAK, individuals based in the Republic of Korea. The case involved several domain names registered by the respondents that combined the “PVR” and “INOX” trademarks, including <pvrinoxcinemas.com>, <pvr-inox.com>, and <pvrinoxmovies.com>. The complainants, represented by Saikrishna & Associates, argued that these domains were registered in bad faith and infringed upon their trademark rights. PVR, founded in 1995, is known for operating numerous multiplex cinemas across India, while INOX, operational since 2002, is another major cinema brand. The two companies publicly announced their merger on March 27, 2022—the same day the respondents registered the disputed domain names.

PVR and INOX claimed that the respondents had no legitimate interests in the domains, had not been authorised to use the trademarks, and had not engaged in any fair or non-commercial use of the domain names. The respondents did not file a formal response but sent several emails to WIPO inquiring about the process. According to the complainants, the respondents exploited the news of the merger to register domains incorporating “PVR” and “INOX” trademarks with the intent to profit by either hosting pay-per-click ads or reselling the domains at an exorbitant price (USD 180,000). WIPO consolidated the complaints from PVR and INOX, determining that the complainants had a common interest in preventing misuse of their combined trademarks, especially in light of their recent merger.

After reviewing the evidence, the WIPO panel found that the disputed domains were confusingly similar to the PVR and INOX trademarks and that the respondents had no legitimate rights to them. The panel noted that the trademarks “PVR” and “INOX” are distinctive, and the respondents’ registration of the domains on the merger date suggested prior knowledge and an intent to profit from this event. The panel determined that the respondents had acted in bad faith by passively holding the domains with no valid use, displaying “passive holding” as defined in WIPO’s guidelines. Ultimately, the panel ordered the transfer of all seven disputed domain names to the complainants, concluding that the respondents had indeed registered and used the domains in bad faith.

The PVR-INOX case serves as a relevant precedent for the ongoing JioHotstar dispute, underscoring the UDRP’s role in addressing opportunistic domain registrations that exploit mergers and established trademarks. Much like the respondents in the PVR-INOX case, the JioHotstar domain registrant appears to have acted in bad faith, seeking to capitalise on the combined brand’s reputation and likely intending to profit by attracting interest based on this association. As UDRP proceedings demonstrated in the PVR-INOX case, registrants who lack legitimate rights and register domains to profit from recognisable trademarks risk rapid domain forfeiture.

Now, there are several questions that are being raised on social media. From what I have learned and from the discussion between Jay and Ankur, I have answered few of the important questions below.

Can legal action be pursued if the domain owner is based outside India?

Ankur confirmed that yes, legal action can proceed regardless of the domain owner’s location, as UDRP enables trademark owners to claim a domain if it was registered or used in bad faith. The UDRP was established in 1999 specifically to address cyber-squatting, allowing international disputes to be resolved efficiently. If the trademark owner can demonstrate that the domain was registered with awareness of the trademark and in bad faith, the owner’s location does not prevent legal action. Reliance, in this instance, could pursue UDRP action if necessary.

What would happen to the current domain holders if Reliance takes action?

During the discussion, Jay asked Ankur about the potential consequences for the current domain holders—the children—if the domain is transferred. Ankur explained that Reliance or Jio, if they choose to take legal action, have several options. They could file a UDRP dispute, a swift and economical way to reclaim the domain, provided they can show that it was registered in bad faith. If successful, the domain would be transferred. Additionally, Reliance or Jio could pursue civil or criminal charges if they believe their trademark rights were infringed, potentially seeking damages. Reliance, with its vast resources, could also take international legal action if needed.

In any case, Jio appears to have the advantage. The current domain owners acquired the domain after the Jio and Hotstar merger announcement and are leveraging the goodwill of both brands, which simplifies Jio’s task of proving its case under UDRP.

Can the Delhi-based individual avoid legal consequences if the domain is transferred?

Another pertinent question is whether the ‘dreamer’ can evade legal repercussions. Ankur emphasised that he cannot. In his discussion with Jay, Ankur explained that transferring the domain doesn’t absolve the Delhi-based individual from legal liability. The act of registering the domain after the merger news surfaced indicates bad faith intent, amounting to cyber-squatting. Legal consequences could still apply for the initial registration if trademark rights are enforced through UDRP or civil litigation.

Jay highlighted a critical point during their conversation: while the ‘dreamer’ claims to be an app developer, rather than creating high-quality apps, he chose the route of monetising a domain that includes Jio’s trademark. “If he genuinely sought funds, he could have developed ten excellent apps over the past year and earned the required 1 crore for his studies. His actions were clearly in bad faith,” Jay observed.

What if the domain keeps getting transferred to new owners?

This is a speculation circulating on social media—that the owners could repeatedly sell or transfer the domain to new parties. However, this is not how the process works. When a case is registered with UDRP, the registrar locks the domain, preserving the current WHOIS information. Although not mandated by UDRP, this step is taken to streamline the proceedings. If Jio files a complaint regarding JioHotstar.com with UDRP, the domain will be locked at the registrar level, preventing the owner from making any modifications.

When I spoke with Ankur, he confirmed, “Yes, as soon as a complaint is filed, the domain name is first locked before the domain registrant is served with a notice of the UDRP proceedings.”

The JioHotstar domain saga should serve as a cautionary tale for those who believe they can freely meddle with trademarks, copyrights, and both local and international laws. Currently, there seems to be a misconception that registering a domain linked to a recognised trademark can go unchecked—but this is far from reality. Laws stand firmly against cybersquatting, and ultimately, it’s the one who tries to be “oversmart,” like the so-called “dreamer,” who ends up losing. Avoid such actions; it simply isn’t worth the risk.

You can read the article on X here.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here