![]() ![]() These approaches can be classified into three categories: single-strategy-based approaches, multiple-strategy based approaches, and approaches based on exploiting external semantic resources. To address this issue, various ontology merging approaches have been proposed. Indeed, this is widely regarded as a crucial, yet difficult task, specifically when dealing with heavyweight ontologies that consist of hundreds of thousands of concepts. The output of this process can be further exploited to merge ontologies into a single coherent ontology. This process is also known as ontology alignment. A key solution to addressing this problem can be through identifying semantic correspondences between the entities (including concepts, relations, and instances) of heterogeneous ontologies, and consequently achieving interoperability between them. However, the conceptual and terminological differences (a.k.a semantic heterogeneity problem) between ontologies form a major limiting factor towards their use/reuse and full adoption in practical settings. With the development of the Semantic Web (SW), the creation of ontologies to formally conceptualize our understanding of various domains has widely increased in number. Also, there is a need to strengthen the UDRP. ![]() ICANN should formulate a model domain names dispute resolution law for adoption by various countries. In order to protect the domain names in a better way, there is a need to bring uniformity to domain name laws of various countries. However, this option is seldom exercised. The losing party still has the option of appealing to a court of competent jurisdiction in case of gTLDs and new gTLDs. It is much less relevant for country code top level domains (ccTLDs). It has been found that UDRP is applicable to generic top level domains (gTLDs) and new gTLDs. The major domain name dispute cases resolved under UPRP by WIPO are studied. The application of UDRP, domain name registration process and dispute resolution service process are examined. In this research, the various kinds of domain name abuses are identified. In order to protect the domain names and bring uniformity, ICANN developed the Uniform Domain Name Resolution Policy (UDRP). There is no uniformity to protect domain names among the laws of various countries. Unlike trademarks, domain names are not sufficiently protected by the laws of a country. So, a comprehensive law against cyber-squatting and to grant adequate protection to domain names is need of hour in India.ĭomain names have a dual role in today's internet driven market place-to map IP addresses and to act as identifier of trademark of a company. However due to the absence of a specific law, the courts have not been not been consistent in imposing fines and giving relief to the plaintiffs. ![]() In some cases, they have also imposed monetary penalties against the cyber-squatters and ordered them to pay legal fees to the plaintiffs. They have granted injunctions against the cyber-squatters and ordered the transfer of domains to genuine parties. They have applied the grounds of trademark infringement and passing off someone else's goods as one's own to domain names to protect the interest of genuine parties. ![]() Indian courts have repeatedly held the domain names as online trademarks and business identifiers. Despite having no specific law to handle domain name disputes, Indian courts have played a prominent role in resolving the generic top level domain disputes (gTLDs) under the Trademarks Act, 1999. Also, there has been instances of domain name abuse and misuse in the form of cyber-squatting. At the same time, domain name disputes have also increased. The growth of commercial activities on the internet have propelled domain names to emerge as significant business identifiers. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |