Revision as of 20:20, 26 April 2017

India and the world: Speed of internet connections, 2015; Graphic courtesy: The Times of India

Access

State-wise position, 2016

See graphic.

Access to Internet, state-wise; The Times of India, April 22, 2017

Digital divide

Internet users

The Times of India Jan 08 2015

India saw its first internet connection on August 15, 1995 when Videsh Sanchar Nigam Limited launched the country's first internet services. The government opened up the sector for private operators in 1998. New regulations in telecom policy opened up internet telephony in 2002. Despite these measures, India's internet prevalence is far lower than in the advanced or other BRICS economies. Given the literacy levels and with average revenues per user in many cases being comparable to the cost of the cheapest internet packages offered, this is hardly surprising.

Net control

The Times of India

URLs, blocked and unblocked (year-wise): 2012-14; Graphic courtesy: The Times of India

Apr 04 2015

Govt blocked 2,341 URLs in '14, 73% more than '13

The government issued orders to block 2,341 URLs in 2014, the official response to an RTI application has shown, up 73% from the number blocked in 2013. The RTI was filed by Delhi-based nonprofit legal services organisation Software Freedom Law Center India (SFLC.in) last month with the Department of Electronics and Information Technology (DeitY), which falls under the ministry of communications and IT.

The number of orders blocking URLs (Uniform Resource Locators), the address of data available on the world wide web, stood at 1,341 in 2013. The application sought answers on blocking orders issued pursuant to court orders, requests from government departments, and at the suggestion of private parties. The DeitY response says that “barring a few numbers, all URLs were blocked on the orders of the court.“ “Further, as per the provisions of Rule 16 of the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguard for locking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009, notified under section 69 A of the Information Technology Act 2000, the requests and complaints received and ac tions taken thereof are confidential,“ the reply adds.

SFLC.in, which uploaded the RTI and the reply on its website, has said in an accompanying blog that the government needs to review its stance on confidentiality, particularly in the light of the apex court's observations while striking down Section 66 A of the IT Act. It says that the SC “invited attention to several safeguards incorporated into Section 69A -one amongst them being that reasons behind blocking orders are to be recorded in writing in the orders... so that they may be challenged by means of writ petitions...“

Cybersquatting/ domain name complaints

2015: India no.11

The Times of India, Apr 20 2016

Indian domain name plaints up 60% in 2015

Rupali Mukherjee

German luxury fashion firm Hugo Boss leads the list of global companies which filed the highest number of cybersquatting cases in 2015, with fashion emerging as the sector with the greatest activity in terms of domain name complaints, according to data from World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). While US heads the list of countries with the largest number of cases at 847, India notched a total of 59 domain name complainant cases in 2015, registering a growth of nearly 60%.

Domestic companies including Bharti Airtel, Voltas, Tata Sons, Wipro, Aircel and Maharashtra Tourism Development Corporation are among those who filed cybersquatting complaints in 2015.Simply put, cybersquatting is the abusive registration of trademarks as domain names, where an individual or company attempts to usurp the reputation of the domain name of an established brand online.

“Whereas Indian trademark owners filed 30 cybersquatting cases with WIPO in the year 2010, they filed almost twice that number in 2015 (59). In India, as elsewhere, cybersquatting targets include famous brands as well as smaller enterprises in banking, automotive, telecommunications, energy , e-commerce, and a range of other sectors. By combating cybersquatting, these brand owners help Indian consumers to find authentic web content,“ Erik Wilbers, director at WIPO's Arbitration and Mediation Center, told.

It is important to prevent cybersquatting, particularly with the opening up of markets and growth of e-commerce, because it may lead to confusion and, in some cases, even fraud. WIPO director general Francis Gurry said in a statement, “As brand owners face the possibility of further abuse of their trademarks in domains -both old and new -they continue to rely on WIPO's cybersquatting dispute resolution procedures. By combating opportunistic domain name registration practices, WIPO's services help consumers to find authentic web content, and enhance the reliability of the domain name system.“ Hugo Boss was followed by tobacco firm Philip Morris, and consumer durables company AB Electrolux among the largest companies which filed cybersquatting complaints. The top three sectors that filed the largest number of cybersquatting complaints globally were fashion (10%), banking & finance (9%), and internet & IT (9%).Retail, biotech & pharmaceuticals, automobiles, and food were the other industries that filed these complaints.

The process to register a domain name is much simpler than registering a trademark, and also cheaper. This is cited as a reason for the huge growth in domain name disputes. Interestingly, in addition to the largest-used “legacy“ domain names like .com by companies, the newer ones .xyz, .club and .email are becoming popular too. The increase in new ge neric top-level domains (gTLD) registrations in WIPO's caseload is anticipated to continue. ICANN, the body that manages domain name system registration, has been rolling out new gTLDs (alternatives to `.com'). As these increase in number, so does the potential for cybersquatting, an industry expert says.

In an instance of alleged cybersquatting, companies file a case with WIPO, which appoints a panelist to assess whether the case is indeed cybersquatting or not. The Uni form Domain-Name-Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP), proposed by WIPO in 1999, is accepted as an international standard for resolving domain name disputes outside the traditional courts, and is designed specifically to discourage and resolve the abusive registration of trademarks as domain names, commonly known as cybersquatting.

Under the UDRP , a complainant must demonstrate that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its trademark, that the respondent does not have a right or legitimate interest in the domain name, and that the respondent registered and used the domain name in bad faith.