Modern Cookers Ltd. is the registered proprietor of the trademark MODERN pertaining to pressure cookers and parts including gaskets. Prasad Enterprises, the respondent was manufacturing and selling gaskets under the trad

Domain names can be registered and protected as trademark at national and international level, provided that the domain names do satisfy all conditions to be duly registered and protected like trademark. Any unique internet name which is capable of identifying and distinguishing goods or services of a company from that of other companies, and can also act as a reliable source identifier for the concerned goods and services on the internet, may be registered and thus protected as trademark, if it satisfies all other rules and requirements for registration which are commonly applicable to the trademarks. For proper registration of a domain name as a trademark, this must be unambiguously unique from all other domain names and well known trademarks on the internet, so that it does not mislead or deceive customers of other companies engaged in the same or different fields, or violate public order or morality. Such cases might give rise to instances of trademark infringement litigation. Trademark law is applicable to domain names when a domain name is used in a manner that causes confusion with an existing trademark. Courts have recognized that unauthorized registration or use of domain names identical or similar to trademarks can constitute cybersquatting or trademark infringement. A landmark case in this context is Satyam Infoway Ltd. v. Sifynet Solutions Pvt. Ltd. (2004), where the Supreme Court of India ruled that domain names serve as business identifiers, similar to trademarks. In this case, Satyam Infoway, which owned the registered trademark "Sify," sued Sifynet Solutions for using domain names like "siffynet.net" and "siffynet.com," claiming trademark infringement. The Court held that domain names function as trademarks when they distinguish goods and services, and unauthorized use could lead to confusion in the minds of consumers. This case established that trademark law applies to domain names when they are used in commerce to indicate the source of goods or services. The ruling also reinforced the principle that domain names should not be misused to exploit an existing trademark, thereby protecting brand owners from unfair competition and online identity theft. The court in this case had held as below: "The original role of a domain name was no doubt to provide an address for computers on the internet. But the internet has developed from a mere means of communication to a mode of carrying on commercial activity. With the increase of commercial activity on the internet, a domain name is also used as a business identifier. Therefore, the domain name not only serves as an address for internet communication but also identifies the specific internet site, and distinguishes specific businesses or services of different companies. Consequently a domain name as an address must, of necessity, be peculiar and unique and where a domain name is used in connection with a business, the value of maintaining an exclusive identity becomes critical. As more and more commercial enterprises trade or advertise their presence on the web, domain names have become more and more valuable and the potential for dispute is high."