DOMAIN names are commonly understood as the addresses of persons (including an artificial person, such as a corporation) over the Internet.

The domain name of a person is unique and universal, assignable only to one person. Therefore, once a domain name is registered in the name of a particular person, no one else can use it. Domain names are allotted on a first come first served basis by domain name registrars. This gave rise to a breed of persons called ``cyber squatters'' who registered popular domain names in their name with the expectation that these could be sold later at a hefty price. A need was, therefore, felt to have a mechanism to deal with the disputes between the domain name holders and the stake holders.

The dispute resolution policy applies to all domain name registrars who are accredited with ICANN. These include Register.com and Network Solutions Inc among others. At present, the dispute resolution policy applies only to domain names with ``.com'', ``.net'' and ``.org'' extensions.

All domain name disputes are now governed by three sets of policies/rules:

Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (``UDRP'')

ICANN rules pursuant to the UDRP dispute resolution service provider's supplemental rules.

Every person seeking to register a domain name through an accredited registrar is mandatorily subject to the UDRP. The UDRP provides that registrars receiving complaints concerning the impact of domain names they have registered on trademarks or service marks will take no action until they receive instructions from the domain-name holder or an order of a court, arbitrator, or other neutral decision maker deciding the parties' dispute.

The UDRP provides for recognising certain entities as Dispute Resolution Service Providers (``DRSP'') as the neutral decision makers in deciding domain name disputes.To date, there are four approved DRSPs, namely, WIPO, the National Arbitration Forum, the CPR Institute for Dispute Resolution and the eResolution Consortium.

These DRSPs are responsible for the mandatory administrative proceedings, which effectively constitute the cornerstone of the UDRP. The UDRP, the Rules and the Supplemental Rules of each DRSP work together to ensure that a decision is reached in every domain name dispute in a period of about 45 days, contrasted with the prolonged course of justice in Indian courts. Moreover, the UDRP also grants as remedies, the transfer or the cancellation of the domain name. Obtaining such a remedy from Indian courts within such a short period and which is also easily enforceable against domain name owners in other jurisdictions, is still a dream.

Any person who believes that he or she has a legitimate claim over a particular domain name would be able to proceed under the UDRP even though he himself has not registered a domain name. Essentially, to make a valid claim under the UDRP, the complainant has to demonstrate that the domain name under dispute is identical or confusingly similar to the complainant's trademarks / servicemarks and that the domain name owner has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.

Examples of bad faith include the registration of a domain name with intent to sell at a later date or the registration of a domain name to prevent the business of a competitor.

A domain name owner could successfully defend his / her registration by showing that the owner also has certain claims as regards the domain name.

For example, if the domain name under dispute is xyz.com and the complainant shows that it has a valid trademark ``XYZ'' in India and the domain name owner proves that it has a valid trademark ``XYZ'' in the US, there could be no award in favour of the complainant.

There is no doubting the popularity of the UDRP mechanism all over the world, with over several hundred disputes having been decided in a span of about 5 months. The DRSPs have been able to successfully evict some cyber squatters and return the domain names to their rightful owners. Particularly, in the Indian scenario, the DRSPs have passed rulings over domain name disputes such as thetimesofindia.com, theecoonomictimes.com and tata.org.

The formation of such mechanisms and policies is an important step towards achieving a harmonised regulation of cyber space. While it is still a nascent mechanism, it would be truly tested with the passage of time and with questions of a more complex nature.