When users type Perplexity.in into the URL bar, the address redirects them to Google’s Gemini chatbot. It remains unclear whether Google or another entity or a person is responsible for the domain-redirecting mechanism. This comes as Perplexity is trying to grow its user base in India through a partnership with Airtel, which offers users a one-year free subscription to Perplexity Pro.
A similar domain squatting incident occurred in 2023 as well, when a Delhi-based app developer who had bought “JioHotstar.com” anticipated the JioCinema–Hotstar merger and attempted to sell the domain to Reliance Industries for Rs 1 crore to fund his higher education. However, Reliance rejected the offer and is considering legal action. At the time of writing this report, JioHotstar.com redirects the users to hotstar.com.
Who owns the Perplexity.in domain?
Domain squatting and cybersquatting both involve registering domain names that contain someone else’s trademark, brand, or personal name without permission. In both cases, the registrant seeks to profit by selling the domain back to the rightful owner or by exploiting user confusion. The term “domain squatting” applies broadly, while “cybersquatting” typically refers to trademark-related registrations made in bad faith.
When MediaNama checked the domain registration details of Perplexity.in on the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) website, it revealed that the “RDAP server redacted the values” related to the admin’s name, email, and registration address or billing city. RDAP refers to the Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP), which enables users to access current registration data.
However, the domain was created in July 2024 and was last updated on November 11, 2025—nearly 10 days before the Gemini redirection issue surfaced.
When Is Cybersquatting Ruled Illegal?
In 1999, India faced one of the earliest cybersquatting incidents featuring a US-based search engine, Yahoo. Akash Arora, who registered the domain “Yahoo India” with the original Yahoo’s format, contents, layout, and colour scheme, argues that the word “Yahoo” is a general dictionary word and not a registered trademark in Indian jurisdiction.
However, the Delhi High Court ruled in favour of the original Yahoo and granted an interim injunction stopping Arora from operating, selling, advertising, or offering services under “Yahooindia.com” or any similar domain or trademark until the suit was resolved. This judgement has set one of the early precedents in India, where the URL is also protected under the trademark acts.
In a similar vein, when Adobe approached the Delhi High Court related to similar domain squatting issues, the Court noted that its earlier orders infringing on the domains addobe.com and adobee.com were blocked, and it also permanently restrained squatters and all associated persons from registering…
Source link
Disclaimer
We strive to uphold the highest ethical standards in all of our reporting and coverage. We blogs.grocliq.com want to be transparent with our readers about any potential conflicts of interest that may arise in our work. It’s possible that some of the investors we feature may have connections to other businesses, including competitors or companies we write about. However, we want to assure our readers that this will not have any impact on the integrity or impartiality of our reporting. We are committed to delivering accurate, unbiased news and information to our audience, and we will continue to uphold our ethics and principles in all of our work. Thank you for your trust and support.
Website Upgradation is going on for any glitch kindly connect at [email protected]
