E-Paper
Courts can’t provide permanent protection against cyber fraud: Bombay HC to HUL
The Bombay high court (HC) expressed its inability to provide permanent protection to business houses from fraudulent websites that use deceptive domain names, similar
The Bombay high court (HC) expressed its inability to provide permanent protection to business houses from fraudulent websites that use deceptive domain names, similar to those used by a brand, to cheat citizens.
The court was hearing a plea filed by Hindustan Unilever Limited (HUL), seeking orders for suspending and blocking several websites and e-mail addresses launched using its generic name or its deceptively similar variants, after it noticed that those were fraudulently being used for luring unsuspecting public into parting with significant amounts of money on a completely false promise of being made authorised dealers of HUL products. One such site had defrauded some individuals of over ₹70 lakh.
“Eternal vigilance is not just the price of liberty; it is also the cost of doing large-volume business,”
a single-bench of Justice Gautam Patel held. Justice Patel in his 16-page order also explained how ‘trivial’ it was to get a domain name registered, and how difficult it is to ensure continued suspension of a domain name.
“One only has to look up availability of a combination of words and choose a desired top-level or other domain (.in, .com, .net, etc),” said the judge, adding, “The entire process of registration is automated and requires no manual intervention.”
Justice Patel held that it was not possible for a continued suspension of such domain names because the registration is only for a limited period, and the domain name becomes available for fresh registration once the period is over.
The court also pointed out that blocking access to websites was of seriously doubtful efficacy. Justice Patel said any such ‘block’ can be easily circumvented by using a commonly available Virtual Private Network (VPN) to connect to another network, by-passing region restrictions, shielding browsing activity and so on.
He added that though access to such bypassing technology is still not common, and the average user may not know about it or even how to use it, VPN products are available for mobile phone platforms as well now.
“Therefore, other than lulling an applicant into a completely hollow and faux sense of safety (and conceivably giving some ill-informed government functionary an entirely unwarranted sense of power or authority), blocking access achieves next to nothing,” noted the bench.
Justice Patel instead suggested that HUL should take up the matter with the domain name registrars concerned for suspending the infringing domain name, and move HC with a fresh plea, if the matter is not resolved at that level.
HC said there was no doubt that the registration of these domain names was entirely mala fide and constituted an infringement of HUL’s valuable statutory and common law rights. The court, however, rejected the consumer giant’s another plea urging the court to devise a suitable mechanism and pass appropriate orders to effectively deal with further fraudulent domain names, websites, e-mail addresses which may be encountered by the company.
“I do not think it is for any court to come up with mechanisms to protect the plaintiff’s interest at low or no cost,” said justice Patel rejecting the company’s plea for perpetual protection by ordering blocking of such offending websites and e-mail addresses that might noticed later.
