In Yahoo, Inc. v. Akash Arora and Netlink Internet Services, the former, the global Internet media search and information network, filed an action against the latter for passing-off their services on the Internet as those of the plaintiffs' by adopting the domain name "yahooindia.com".

The plaintiffs submitted that their domain name "yahoo.com" was registered with Network Solutions Inc. (NSI) since 1995, that it had become well-known and that they had obtained registrations on the trademark YAHOO or variations thereof in approximately 69 countries, although not in India. The defendants registered the domain name "yahooindia.com" with NSI in November 1997, as well as 16 variations containing the word "yahoo". The plaintiff objected to the defendants' use of the domain name and the defendants responded by modifying the announcement of their forthcoming website and by including the disclaimer that "//www.yahooindia.com" had no connection with Yahoo, Inc. of California, U.S.A. The defendants thereafter activated their website and adopted substantial parts of the plaintiffs' Singapore website named "yahoo.co.sg" which contained a section on India.

The defendants submitted that a website, unlike a trademark, is a specific address and that their disclaimer would eliminate any confusion. They further pointed out that there was no protection for services in India and that no goods were involved in this case. In addition, they claimed that, contrary to the plaintiff, their website offered only content specifically directed to India, that "Yahoo" was an English dictionary word available to all, and that Internet users, who are usually sophisticated, would know the difference between the two websites.

The Delhi High Court rejected the defendants' arguments, on the grounds, inter alia, that trademark law applies equally to domain names on the Internet; that, where the parties are in the same or a similar line of business, the use of similar names would result in confusion and deception; that the disclaimer entered by the defendants on their website did not reduce the likelihood of confusion; that the plaintiff had obtained registrations on the trademark YAHOO and variations thereof in 69 countries; that the mark was widely publicized and well-known; and that the fact that "Yahoo" was a dictionary word was no reason to deny protection for the mark. The court also held that, although Internet users were technically educated and literate, this would not reduce the risk of confusion.

This is the first case in India in which the court has applied trademark law to support a judgment in a domain name dispute. The decision is particularly significant as the Indian Trade and Merchandise Marks Act 1958 does not provide for the registration of service marks and the court in effect extended the principles of common law to cover services offered through the Internet.