Singapore High Court dismisses cybersquatter's lawsuit against Grab unit

Singapore

THE Singapore High Court has dismissed a lawsuit by management consultancy 3 Corporate Services (3CS) against Grabtaxi Holdings, a unit of Grab, over a dispute involving 3CS' attempt to sell an online domain name to the super-app player.

In July 2017, Ho Qiyang Mark, the sole shareholder of 3CS, had offered to sell the domain name "grab.co.id" to Grabtaxi for US$250,000. In its lawsuit, 3CS alleged that Grabtaxi had later reneged on an agreement to buy over the domain name.

In a written judgment issued on Wednesday, Senior Judge Lai Siu Chiu deemed that 3CS had engaged in "cybersquatting", or "the deliberate, bad-faith, abusive registration of domain names in violation of rights in trademarks and service marks", as defined in a World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) report.

Cybersquatters are typically known to register, or "squat on" popular domain names, then sell them at exorbitant prices to legitimate business owners. There is no statutory definition of cybersquatting in Singapore.

In its defence, Grabtaxi argued that 3CS engaged in cybersquatting, citing how 3CS and another entity, Top3 Media, had registered more than 1,000 domain names, such as "www.gojek.com.sg", "www.toyotaharrier.com.sg", "www.amyswinehouse.com" and "www.ubereats.com.sg".

Top3 Media, which is owned by Mr Ho and his younger brother, is a Singapore-based domain registrar that designs and develops websites.

Given its concerns, Grabtaxi said that it decided not to proceed with the purchase in September 2017.

Five months later, 3CS filed a lawsuit seeking US$250,000 from Grabtaxi, on the basis that Grabtaxi had breached a binding contract.

However, in her judgment, Senior Judge Lai said that it does not seem possible for 3CS to enforce the offer letter, as it is not the domain owner. The domain was in fact registered under an employee of Top3, and that there was no declaration that he was holding it on behalf of 3CS or Mr Ho.

Even if the letter were enforceable, Senior Judge Lai said that she is not satisfied that 3CS has sufficiently proved that it has suffered any loss.

She further noted that 3CS' use of the domain name "has all the markings of bad faith and the insignia of cybersquatting", with "indiscriminate registration of generic and non-generic domain names" by Mr Ho, 3CS and other related parties.

3CS' lawyer Daniel Soo, director of Selvam LLC, noted that "this is the first time the High Court has refused to enforce an agreement to transfer a domain name, on the grounds of public policy". He said that his client has not made a decision on appealing the judgment.

Grabtaxi is represented by Niru & Co LLC.

It is rare for the High Court to have the opportunity to rule on cybersquatting, noted Adrian Tan, a partner at TSMP Law Corp. There are no criminal penalties for cybersquatting in Singapore.

"Such rulings show that the Singapore court is aware of and frowns upon the practice of cybersquatting. In general, cybersquatting has undesirable effects because it prevents businesses and entrepreneurs from legitimately using their business names as their domain names," he said.

"It may also be harmful to consumers, as consumers may wrongly believe, or be confused as to whether a particular domain really belongs to a particular business," he added.

Previous high-profile cybersquatting cases in Singapore were heard by WIPO, which controls the use of domain names. Back in 2000, Singapore Airlines (SIA) won cybersquatting cases heard by a WIPO panel over several domains, including singaporegirl.com, which was apparently used by a dating service.

WIPO also heard a case involving Singapore Cable Vision (SCV) to claw back the domain singaporecablevision.com, which had been registered by another Singapore company.

SCV also won the case.

In both the SIA and SCV cases, the panel ruled that the domains were identical or confusingly similar to the companies' trademarks.