Trademark Protection In The Digital Environment

Author: LawSphereX

Category: Technology, Cyber & Privacy

Published: 2026-08-23T21:35:52.478055+00:00

Updated: 2026-08-26T17:05:14.898+00:00

TRADEMARK PROTECTION IN THE DIGITAL

ENVIRONMENT

Ankit Rana, Himachal Pradesh National Law University, Shimla

ABSTRACT

The Intellectual property (IP) rights play a critical role in the business models and revenue generation of the entertainment industry. This paper analyzes the importance of copyright, trademark, and other IP protections for music, film, and other creative works. It examines the significant economic impact of piracy and unauthorized use, with studies estimating substantial losses to the industry from illegal downloading and streaming. The paper then assesses the effectiveness of current copyright and trademark laws in safeguarding entertainment properties. It discusses key court cases that have tested the boundaries of IP rights in the digital age, as well as the challenges of enforcing these rights globally. The analysis also covers the limitations and debates around IP protection, such as the fair use doctrine and concerns over access to culture.

Overall, the research demonstrates the entertainment industry's heavy reliance on robust IP rights to incentivize investment, creativity, and innovation. However, it also highlights the need to continually adapt legal frameworks to address evolving technologies and business models. The paper concludes by considering potential reforms or new approaches to IP protection that could better serve the interests of both rights holders and the public.

Introduction Trademark Protection in the digital era refers to the legal strategies and measures employed to safeguard trademarks in the digital environment. As the internet and digital technologies have revolutionized business operations, they have also introduced new challenges in protecting brand identity and intellectual property. Key aspects include domain name protection against cybersquatting, where individuals register domain names identical or similar to trademarks with bad faith intent. Legal measures such as the Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy (UDRP) help trademark owners reclaim such domains efficiently. Additionally, the rise of social media platforms and online marketplaces has made it easier for counterfeiters to sell fake goods and misuse trademarks.

Companies must continuously monitor these platforms and use tools provided by them, such as reporting mechanisms, to enforce their trademark rights. Competitors may utilize a brand's trademarked names as keywords in search engine optimization (SEO) and online advertising, confusing consumers. In these kinds of situations, trademark infringement can be stopped by legal action and discussions. The deployment of anti-counterfeiting technologies like blockchain and digital watermarks is crucial in combating counterfeiting. These technologies can offer a verifiable chain of custody for goods, ensuring authenticity. Given the global nature of the internet, trademark protection often requires international efforts. The Madrid Protocol facilitates the registration of trademarks in multiple jurisdictions with a single application, streamlining the process for businesses operating globally.

Updating and enforcing existing trademark laws to address digital challenges is imperative. This includes recognizing and addressing issues like trademark infringement in the context of new technologies, digital marketing, and e-commerce. Businesses must also be educated about the importance of trademark protection and the digital threats they face. This involves training on recognizing potential infringements and understanding the legal avenues available for enforcement. Employing advanced digital monitoring tools and services that scan the web for potential infringements can be highly effective. These tools can automatically scan websites, social media, and other online platforms for unauthorized use of trademarks. Collaborative efforts with industry groups, governments, and other organizations are essential in combating

trademark infringement and counterfeiting. Sharing information and strategies can lead to more effective enforcement. As new technologies like artificial intelligence (AI), virtual reality (VR), and augmented reality (AR) emerge, they bring new challenges and opportunities for trademark protection. Businesses and legal frameworks must adapt to these changes to ensure ongoing protection of trademarks in these new environments. By employing a comprehensive approach that includes legal action, technology, international cooperation, and continuous monitoring, businesses can effectively protect their trademarks in the ever-evolving digital landscape.

Definition and Importance Trademark can be defined according to Section 15 of the Agreement on Trade-related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights as:1 "Any sign or any combination of signs capable of distinguishing goods and services of one undertaking from other undertakings or signs shall be capable of constituting a trademark. " There are several dimensions in this definition. Firstly, trademarks are distinguished by their function, which is to serve as a means of distinguishing the goods of one undertaking from those of another. The main function of a trademark is its distinctiveness. It ensures that consumers are not misled as to the quality of the product.

Trademark Infringement The Trade Marks Act provides provisions through which an individual can take appropriate actions for the violation of Trademarks however he would need to establish that that particular infringement was used for the trade purpose. The act provides that if a person uses the trademark of one particular entity which is registered with that particular entity by selling goods under the shadow of that trademark or by advertising his/her products or services under the trademark of that entity or export or import goods under that registered sign or uses that product for any of his profit, provided that the use of the trademark should be for the benefit of his/her own trade or for any commercial purpose.

1 Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, art. 15.

According to the Section 29(1) of THE TRADE MARKS ACT, 19992 A registered trademark is infringed by a person who, not being a registered proprietor or a person using by way of permitted use, uses in the course of trade, a mark which is identical with, or deceptively similar to, the trade mark in relation to goods or services in respect of which the trade mark is registered and in such manner as to render the use of the mark likely to be taken as being used as a trade mark.

And according to section 29(2) of the act A3 registered trademark is infringed by a person who, not being a registered proprietor or a person using by way of permitted use, uses in the course of trade, a mark which because of— (a) its identity with the registered trade mark and the similarity of the goods or services covered by such registered trade mark; or (b) its similarity to the registered trade mark and the identity or similarity of the goods or services covered by such registered trademark; or (c) its identity with the registered trade mark and the identity of the goods or services covered by such registered trade mark, is likely to cause confusion on the part of the public, or which is likely to have an association with the registered trademark.

Furthermore, in accordance with section 29(4) of the act4, a person who, without being a registered proprietor or someone using a permitted use, uses a mark in the course of business that is identical to or similar to a registered trademark; b) is used in relation to goods or services that are not similar to those for which the trade mark is registered; and c) has a reputation in India and its unwarranted use unfairly takes advantage of or harms its distinctive character or reputation. India's trademark laws are governed by the Trademarks Act, 1999 (henceforth referred to as the Act). The Act establishes guidelines for trademark registration, protection, and infringement penalties. All around the world, trademarks are treated as intellectual property. Numerous national and international organizations work to safeguard intellectual property, including trademarks.

2 Trade Marks Act, 1999, § 29(1) (India).

3 Trademarks Act of 1999, No. 47 of 1999, § 29 (India).

4 Trademarks Act of 1999, No. 47 of 1999, § 29 (India).

The Indian Patent Office, which is run by the Controller General of Patents, Designs, and Trademarks, is the entity in India that handles trademark protection. To put it simply, trademark infringement refers to the unapproved use of a mark that is confusingly close to or identical to a registered trademark.The term deceptively similar here means that when an average consumer looks at the mark, it is likely to confuse him/her of the origin of the goods or services.

1. Direct infringement

Direct infringement is defined by Section 29 of the Act5. There a few elements that have to be met for a direct breach to occur; they are as follows:

1. Use by an unauthorized person: Accordingly, a trademark is only violated when it is

utilized by someone without permission from the registered trademark proprietor. It does not constitute infringement when the mark is utilized with permission from the registered trademark proprietor6.

2. Identical or deceptively similar: The trademark that is being used without authorization

must either be an exact match to the registered trademark or a false similarity. The phrase "deceptively similar" in this context simply indicates that the average consumer "may" be perplexed and believe the two marks to be identical. Since "may" is the operational word in this context, proof of this concept's existence is sufficient; proof of its actual occurrence is not needed. The presence of a possibility of misidentifying the marks suffices to establish infringement.7

3. Registered trademark: Only trademarks that have been registered with the Indian

Trademark Registry are eligible for protection under the Act. The common law of passing off is utilized to resolve disputes in cases of infringement of unregistered marks. This tort law is applied in situations where the actions of an individual or group of individuals result in harm or damage to the goodwill of others.

4. Class of goods or services: Unauthorized use of the mark for the promotion of products or

services that are in the same class as the registered brand is required for trademark

5 Indian Trademark Act, No. 47 of 1999, § 29 (India).

6 Indian Trademark Act, No. 47 of 1999, § 29(2) (India).

7 Indian Trademark Act, No. 47 of 1999, § 29(2)(b) (India).

infringement8.

2. Indirect infringement

In contrast to direct infringement, indirect infringement is not expressly covered by any Act provision. This does not absolve anyone of responsibility for indirect infringement, though. The universal law principle gives rise to the concept of indirect infringement and its application. It holds responsible not just the primary violator but also everyone who helps or encourages the direct perpetrator to violate the law. Two categories of indirect infringement exist:

1. Vicarious liability: Section 114 of the Act9 states that if a business violates this Act, the

entire business will be held accountable. Therefore, everyone accountable for the company, with the exception of those who operated in good faith and without knowledge of the infringement, will be held accountable for indirect infringement, in addition to the five major infringers. The following conditions must be met for vicarious liability: - The individual must be able to control the principal infringer's activities; - The individual must be aware of the infringement and assist in it; - The individual must have the potential to profit financially from the infringement A company's vicarious liability for infringement is only abrogated in the event that it acted in good faith and was unaware of the infringement.

2. Contributory infringement:Contributory infringement solely consists of these three

fundamental components:When an individual is aware of a violation; when an individual materially contributes to a direct violation; or when an individual coerces the primary violator to engage in unlawful behavior There is no exception in the situation of contributory infringement since there is no possibility that the contributing infringer will act honorably10. A mark can also be used to communicate additional signals about luxury and lifestyle that

the owner has worked hard to get. Accordingly, the mark has an intrinsic economic worth that is distinct from the value of the goods and services for which it is registered, and the message that a well-known mark conveys gives the mark a considerable value that ought to

8 Indian Trademark Act, No. 47 of 1999, § 29(2)(a) (India)

9 Indian Trademark Act, No. 47 of 1999, § 114 (India)

10 Indirect Infringement, Wex (Legal Information Institute),

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/indirect_infringement (last visited July 21, 2024).

be preserved. The court in General Motors v. Yplon11 clarified that reputation required a knowledge threshold, meaning that a mark would have a reputation if a sizable portion of the public was aware of it due to the goods or services the mark covered. As a result, even when two marks are used for unrelated goods or services, the public may link them if they are somewhat familiar with one another. The market share, geographic scope, length of use, substantial number of customers familiar with the mark, and the owner's investment must all be taken into account, as determined by the ruling in the same case. Reputational damage, also known as degradation or tarnishment, occurs when a later usage disparages, sullies, or degrades the original brand. There are two possible scenarios for tarnishment.

when there is some unfavorable association and where the intended use might negatively impact the opponent's reputation. This would be the case if the products were employed for simple or ineffective products12. In the case of Colgate Palmolive v. Lucas Bols Claeryn/Klarein13, it was decided that the famous Dutch gin "Claeryn" would be tarnished by the association of liquid soap with detergent, as nobody enjoys being reminded of soap while enjoying their favorite beverage. Second, trademark holders frequently take issue with being linked to goods or services related to prostitution.

Opposition to the applicant's mark VISA for condoms was permitted in CA Sheimer(M)Sdn Bhd's Trade Mark Application on the grounds that it would interfere with VISA International's use of its previously registered mark, which has associations with birth control and sexual hygiene and could negatively impact consumer perceptions of the mark from the perspective of financial services. It is not VISA International's place to push condoms while simultaneously promoting its banking services. "Deceptive similarity" is referred to in the infringement test. Therefore, even if the infringers are successful in proving that the use was done without permission, the individual would not be entitled to stop the use of its registered trademark. Neuberger J. stated in Premier Brands v. Typhoon Europe Ltd14.

that an applicant or an infringer must demonstrate a legitimate basis for using its sign in connection with its goods, even if doing so is unfair or would cause harm to the earlier mark. The Office of Harmonization for Internal Markets (OHIM) Board of Appeal stated in Hollywood SAS v. Souza Cruz15 SA that an earlier mark may only be used with good

11 General Motors Corp. v. Yplon S.A., Case C-375/97, 1999 E.C.R. I-05421.

12 Op cit. L Bently,L and B Sherman,B. p. 887

13 7 IIC 420[4] CA Sheimer(M)Sdn Bhd’s Trade Mark Application [2000] ETMR 1170,

14 Premier Brands v. Typhoon Europe Ltd. [2000] FSR 767 (Ch) (UK).

15 Hollywood SAS v. Souza Cruz SA, Case R 0123/2004-1, Office of Harmonization for Internal Markets

(OHIM) Board of Appeal (2005)

reason if it can be demonstrated that the applicant is required to use the sign in question, that the applicant has a specific right to use the sign, and that the applicant cannot reasonably be required to abstain from using the trademark notwithstanding the harm caused to the mark's proprietor. It is crucial to note, though, that choosing a specific mark in good faith does not excuse its continuous use. Trademark And Internet As we all know that in the present time almost every sphere of our life has a digitized perspective to it. Now as we all know that in this digital era, it gives a wide set of opportunities to the violators also to infringe the intellectual property rights of the individuals. The digital age has presented both opportunities and challenges when it comes to protecting intellectual property rights.

On the one hand, the internet and digital technologies have enabled creators to more easily distribute and share their copyrighted works, music, videos, software, and other creative content with global audiences. This has opened up new business models and revenue streams, allowing creators to monetize their works in innovative ways through online sales, streaming, and licensing. Additionally, digital tools have lowered the barriers to creating and publishing content, empowering more people to become creators and innovators. However, the same digital technologies that enable wider distribution also make it easier to illegally copy and share copyrighted works without permission, leading to rampant digital piracy. The global, borderless nature of the internet complicates efforts to enforce intellectual property rights, as content can be shared worldwide with anonymity.

Rapid technological advancements often outpace the development of effective legal and enforcement mechanisms to protect IP, leaving rights vulnerable to new threats. Navigating the competing interests of IP rights holders, users who expect free access, and digital platforms that host user-generated content is an ongoing challenge. To address these challenges, a combination of legal reforms, technological solutions like digital rights management, and international cooperation is needed to adapt intellectual property frameworks for the digital age. This is crucial to ensure creators are fairly compensated while promoting innovation and access to information. By addressing the complexities of the digital landscape, we can harness the opportunities presented by

technology while also safeguarding the intellectual property rights of individuals and fostering a thriving creative ecosystem. Imagine a Mauritius firm operating under the brand name "Trendy" before the internet was invented. Without confusing consumers or violating anyone's trademark, a different, entirely unrelated business could use the same brand while conducting the same type of business in Nigeria. In an attempt to boost shoe sales, "Trendy Mauritius" and "Trendy Nigeria," with the help of tech-savvy friends and relatives, launched an internet presence. The website www. trendy. com is used by "Trendy Mauritius," while www. trendyshoes. com is used by "Trendy Nigeria. " Ten years ago, the two businesses weren't in direct competition, but today they are vying for the same clients. The consumer base of both enterprises is now global, not limited to either Mauritius or Nigeria alone.

This is one instance of how the Internet has facilitated greater communication between individuals; a Nigerian client may now easily contact a Mauritius business with a single mouse click. While there are undoubtedly benefits to this, using similar trademarks in multiple regions raises the possibility of confusion. Put another way, while trademarks used to be subject to territorial restrictions depending on the actual locations where the mark was used, these restrictions have been lifted in the modern period thanks to the internet. A clear example of registered trademark owners from different geographical areas

competing for the use of the same domain name is the Prince plc v. Prince Sports Group Inc16. dispute. Another term for this circumstance is "domain name envy." The Internet has not only helped to erase the geographical limitations on trademarks, but it has also opened up new avenues for their illicit use. Trademark uses specific to the Internet, like in domain names, meta-tags, hyperlinks, and framing, have also introduced new means of infringement and new laws, in addition to the Internet-specific means of infringement still based on traditional types of trademark infringement, such as where a trademark is simply displayed on a website as it would on more traditional forms of advertising, like television or magazine adverts. A common arena for conflicting business interests is domain names. Domain names, also

known as Internet Protocol addresses, are 32-bit integers that are used to identify computers

16 Prince plc v. Prince Sports Group Inc, unreported, Ch. D., Neuberger J. (1997).

on the Internet. They are also used to identify the source and destination of data packets that are sent over the web. The Domain Name system is a complex method that assigns Internet Protocol addresses and high level names to a huge number of computers. Its foundation is the translation of these names into IP addresses, which are then translated into machine names. In essence, the DNS maps names to addresses by utilizing a group of geographically dispersed servers to assign names to computers on the Internet. Because it is difficult to memorize integers, alphanumeric alternatives were developed to assure user friendliness. In common parlance, these alphanumeric addresses are known as domain names. "Unique identifiers of computer or network addresses on the Internet" is another definition of domain names.

Because domain names essentially function as indications of origin—the primary characteristic of trademarks—businesses vie for them. Since the Internet became commercially available in 1992, it is not unexpected that the use of misleading domain names has given rise to so many lawsuits. Domain names have presented some of the biggest challenges to trademark jurisprudence; in order to address the issue, the law has created a new doctrine known as "cybersquatting. " In reference to early registrants who recognized the potential of combining well-known trademarks with Domain Names, the word "Cybersquatters" was coined following the introduction of "commercial opportunism" in the early stages of the Internet. By taking advantage of the first-come, first-served registration procedure, names were registered and then profitably offered to trademark owners.

According to Macqueen, there are two major reasons why well-known marks are registered: either to provide the mark owner ownership of the Domain Name in exchange for a fee, or to profit from the well-known mark to drive traffic to the website. Nonetheless, Johnson divides cybersquatters into four groups according to different goals: the "Disparager" is defined as someone who registers a name that is identical to another organization's in order to disparage it; the "Extortionist," on the other hand, registers a trade name in order to make money. A "Free Rider" is someone who utilizes a business's trademark to profit from its goodwill and reputation, whereas a "Innocent" is someone who registers a domain name in good faith that ends up being similar to a well-known trade mark. Cybersquatting gives rise to disputes about who owns the domain name, regardless of the form it takes.

Examples of recent cybersquatting lawsuits are Marks and Spencer plc and others v. Intermatic v. Toeppen17. Cybersquatting, also known as one-in-a-million cybersquatting, is the act of registering or using a domain name with the intention of making money from the goodwill of another person's trademark. Essentially, the cybersquatter coerces a trademark proprietor into purchasing the domain name by using it as leverage. In addition to using metatags to send users to unrelated websites and keying to allow rival businesses to place advertisements on the same websites as their rivals, cybersquatting has become a common method of trademark infringement on the Internet. An HTML element with specific information about a Web page is called a metatag. For the ordinary Internet user, metatags and other buried or hidden code are typically invisible.

However, some courts have ruled that using metatags may violate someone else's trademark. Certain search engines retrieve information about websites and their content using metatags. Cybersquatting has emerged as a popular technique for trademark infringement on the Internet, along with the use of metatags to direct readers to irrelevant websites and keying to enable competitors' firms to run adverts on the same websites as their competitors. A metatag is an HTML element that contains special information about a web page. Meta Tags and other buried or hidden code are usually undetectable to the average Internet user. On the other hand, a few courts have decided that employing metatags might be a trademark infringement. Meta Tags are used by some search engines to retrieve data about websites and their contents. Regarding the use of trademarks in metatags, Brookfield Communications v.

West Coast Entertainment Corp. 18 and Playboy Entertainment Inc. v. Welles19 are the two cases that are most frequently referenced. As a result, in recent years, trademark protection has become more and more prominent in discussions, court cases, and legislative initiatives as governments, corporations, and consumers work tirelessly to safeguard trademarks. Protection of Trademarks in The Digital Environment Now in this present world scenario, as the digitalization is growing day by day there is a need to take some measures to protect the intellectual property rights and the Trademarks in this

17 Marks & Spencer plc v. Intermatic Inc., 947 F. Supp. 1227 (N.D. Ill. 1996).

18 Brookfield Commc'ns, Inc. v. West Coast Ent. Corp., 174 F.3d 1036 (9th Cir. 1999).

19 Playboy Enterprises, Inc. v. Welles, 7 F. Supp. 2d 1098 (S.D. Cal. 1998).

digital world. In the digital world , the information or content of the the content creator can be availed to the whole world and there is no limit on who can access the online content or information of the content creator . On the internet the infringement can take place from any corner of the world across all the borders and jurisdiction. In the digital age the protection of the trademarks has become a hard task for the intellectual property holders. Due to new electronic platforms and increased usage of the Internet, it is becoming more difficult to protect a company’s brand, thus, in the past few years, trademark protection has advanced to the forefront of conversations, litigation and legislation, as governments, businesses and consumers daily strive to protect trademarks.

The exclusive right of mark owners to use their creations to identify goods or services, or to provide permission to third parties to use their creations in exchange for money, is guaranteed by trademark protection20. In addition to the existence of national trademark laws, most countries have legal trademark enforcement mechanisms in place that provide them the power to prevent trademark infringement. The applicability of the trademark infringement test in general is well-established by case law, and the number of instances involving trademark infringement in cyberspace is steadily increasing. Since registered trademarks can only be protected within the jurisdiction in which they are most successful, it has proven difficult, at best, to extend this protection to the Internet, which is unrestricted by geography or a set of uniform laws.

As a result, it is now necessary to reevaluate traditional trademark concepts in order to recognize this new phenomenon. Due to this necessity, international agreements controlling trademark matters on the internet have emerged. The Trade Related Aspect of International Property Rights (TRIPS) is one of these accords. Under the auspices of the World Trade Organization (WTO), TRIPS is an international convention that addresses property rights and sets forth obligations and rights for residents of signatory nations in cross-border transactions21. Treaties handled by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) is another.

The Madrid Agreement, which provides a one-stop shop for managing and registering trademarks globally, the Singapore Treaty on the Law of Trademarks, the Trademark Law Treaty, and the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property are among these accords.

20 Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1051-1127 (2012)

21 TRIPS Agreement, supra note 6.

Trademark regulation faces a fundamental challenge from the internet, and the situation is compared to non-governmental governance. The jurisdictional, applicable legal, and enforcement issues surrounding trademarks have been a clear barrier to their regulation in the modern digital era. In almost every jurisdiction, a trademark is governed by statute and local legislations. The difference in laws also creates a problem and there is no one international trademark law that governs trademark infringement in cyberspace. What might constitute trademark infringement in Nigeria might not be the same in Malaysia. In places like Europe, Trademark law is governed individually by each country that is part of the European Union.

However with recourse to the prevalent issues related to infringement of trademarks in cyberspace, the European Union has passed directives that require member states to achieve certain intellectual property protection results22Yet, numerous countries are still left out and there does not appear to be a legal framework available for trademark owners for infringements like user-name cybersquatting23. MacQueen contends that even with the strictest wording, the question of whether a law can be implemented remains. It appears hard to enforce trademark law, rights, and privileges in the current digital era. Liability for violation in cyberspace or on the internet is not being enforced at this time. Even if accountability is enforced, legislators and law enforcement officials in many jurisdictions lack this kind of information. The dearth of expertise in this field is a serious issue.

Users frequently do not know that using the internet is subject to trademark restrictions or that they may be held accountable for trademark infringements. Anyone with access to the global network of cyberspace can access information from the World Wide Web concurrently, and many seem to be unaware of this fact as they navigate the virtual realm of cyberspace. Because many websites have special user name restrictions in place when a trademark holder claims that a user name infringes upon its intellectual property rights, trademark holders are actually at the mercy of websites when making such allegations. Nonetheless, numerous governments have focused their efforts on removing national and regional hurdles to trademark infringement protection in the era of the internet. The Madrid 22 Liang, J. , & Wang, R. (2023).

FedCIP: Federated Client Intellectual Property Protection with Traitor Tracking. ArXiv. 23 Deo, S. , & Deo, S. (2019). Cybersquatting: Threat to Domain Name. International Journal of Innovative Technology and Exploring Engineering.

System for the International Registration of Marks is managed by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), a United Nations organization that advocates for intellectual property protection globally. With just one trademark application, a trademark owner can use the Madrid System to protect their marks throughout several nations. Trademark holders are therefore granted intellectual property protection in nations that are a part of the Madrid System24. An effective tool that intellectual property right holders can use to obtain infringing domain names is the Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy (UDRP) of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). This policy allows trademark owners to obtain, through arbitration, domain names that parties are using that violate their marks.

The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) has also been negotiated by a number of nations. In order to combat the growing issues related to intellectual property infringement more effectively, an agreement is being proposed to strengthen intellectual property protection. Its goal is to set international standards for the enforcement of intellectual property rights. Although it is still in the negotiation stage, the agreement is anticipated to become legally binding for the nations who ratify it. It is too soon to tell how trademark owners would be impacted by the agreement. Conclusion It can be concluded that the protection of the trademarks is a difficult work to do as the digital world is very wide having various aspects. The digital world makes it difficult to track the trademark infringement due to complexities of the digital world.

But various international agreements and treaties are now making it possible to track the trademark infringement irrespective of the country or place it is taking place with the internet as the medium but it is still a long way to go. According to Bentham25, “That which one man has invented, all the world can imitate. Without the support of the laws, the rival would nearly always drive the inventor out of the market. Equipped with a discovery that has cost the inventor a great deal of money and effort, the rival would be able to take away all of the benefits he is entitled to by selling it for less. Laws that act as strong disincentives ought to be in place in order to ensure that any individual's 24 Madrid Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Marks, Apr. 14, 1891, as last revised at Stockholm on July 14, 1967, 828 U. N. T. S. 389

25 Bentham, J and Bowring, J. The Works of Jeremy Bentham (Edinburgh: William Tait, 1839) p. 71

intellectual contributions are sufficiently rewarded. Assume a "traditional" trademark is placed on a website that is instantly accessible from any location with an internet connection. Would the trademark authorities of each country have jurisdiction over this placement? If so, every country's trademark authorities would have concurrent jurisdiction over any infringement of a trademark on the internet. Therefore, a unified trademark protection law for online infringements could be the answer. While legislation by itself cannot bring about complete change, a combination of national and international laws may be able to address some issues. Internet service providers and online users working together, raising awareness, enforcing self-regulation, and educating themselves might all be very beneficial.

People will start conducting searches before registering domain names in order to prevent registering names that have already been registered and so infringing trademarks. This will happen as a result of education, awareness, and self-imposed regulation. This will significantly reduce the quantity of trademark conflicts. In the digital sphere, trademark rights will be more guaranteed if individual users are held accountable for trademark infringement in cyberspace. As opposed to the practice of internet service providers being held accountable for trademark infringement on the internet, individuals who violate trademarks should be held accountable. Lastly, the simple act of a company posting her trademark online does not prove that it is unique when used.

Despite the fact that common law protection makes trademark registration unnecessary, in the current digital era, it is strongly advised since only through registration can a mark owner fully benefit from any legal protection that may be available for trademark infringement in cyberspace.