Beyond takedowns: Delhi High Court’s framework for tackling domain name infringements

In a recent ruling addressing the misuse of domain names for large-scale financial frauds, the Delhi High Court (Court) issued a series of directions to multiple stakeholders, including domain name registrars (DNR), registry operators (Registry Operators), government authorities, and banking institutions.¹

The directions were issued in a batch of matters led by a suit filed by Dabur India Limited (Dabur), which alleged systemic misuse of its intellectual property by unidentified third parties. These third parties had registered and operated multiple domain names incorporating the ‘DABUR’ mark, such as daburfranchise.com, daburfranchisee.in, and daburdistributor.com, and created websites to solicit payments and defraud unsuspecting members of the public.

Typically, in such cases, aggrieved rights holders were constrained to seek ad-interim injunctions for taking down or blocking specific infringing domain names, along with directions for disclosure of registrant details. However, given the ease with which new domain names can be registered, the anonymity afforded by privacy and proxy services, and the involvement of multiple intermediaries across jurisdictions, such relief often proved insufficient.

Recognising the similar and recurring nature of the allegations across the various cases, the Court undertook a consultative and technical examination of the roles and responsibilities of key stakeholders, including the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY), Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), DNRs, Registry Operators, and law enforcement authorities.

Broadly, the Court’s analysis and directions were anchored to the following interrelated questions:

Intermediaries, including DNRs and Registry Operators

Intermediaries are eligible to avail safe harbour protection (i.e., exemption from liability for third-party content) so long as they satisfy the functional criteria under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act), which require them to act as passive conduits. Established jurisprudence makes it clear that intermediaries that go beyond this passive role are not entitled to safe harbour protection.

In this judgment, the Court considered a DNR to be an active participant, rather than a passive conduit, based on certain activities such as actively profiting from infringement through actions like suggesting alternative infringing domain names, offering premium pricing, and providing related marketing services. Consequently, the Court held that such DNRs can be held liable as infringers, leading to a loss of safe harbour protection.

Against this backdrop, and to ensure that relief against infringing domain names is effective in practice, the Court issued the following binding directions to DNRs and Registry Operators:

On the issue of enforcement, the Court criticised the practice of insisting upon service in accordance with bilateral or multilateral treaties, including the Hague Convention, as a pre-condition for compliance with court orders. It directed DNRs operating in India to appoint an India-based grievance officer and to treat service of court orders upon such officers through email as sufficient.

Finally, the judgment affirms the government’s powers under Section 69A of the IT Act, to completely block a non-compliant DNR’s services in India. The Court reasoned that repeated non-compliance could amount to a threat to “public order,” justifying such action.

Government and its agencies

The Court also examined the role of the government and its agencies, including MeitY, the Department of Telecommunications and the Ministry of Home Affairs, in addressing systemic enforcement gaps within the domain name ecosystem. It accordingly issued a combination of binding directions and facilitative recommendations:

Reserve Bank of India and banks

The Court underscored the critical role of the banking system in facilitating the execution of impersonation-based financial frauds. It identified systematic deficiencies that had impeded effective investigation of such frauds by LEAs, including: (a) delayed co-operation by banks, especially in responding to investigative requests, and (b) the relative ease with which fraudsters operated accounts bearing names unrelated to the brands they were impersonating.

Directions relating to investigation protocols

To address these gaps, by way of an interim order during the pendency of this proceeding, the Court had directed the Central Intelligence and Economic Bureau (CIEB) to issue a standard operating procedure (SoP) prescribing clear timelines and protocols for banks to process requests from LEAs. Pursuant to such direction, the CIEB had issued an SoP dated 31 May 2024. The Court has confirmed in this ruling that it is mandatory for all banks to strictly adhere to the SoP when processing requests from LEAs, thereby institutionalising a time-bound and uniform response framework.

Beneficiary account name verification

In addition, the Court directed the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) to introduce a ‘Beneficiary Bank Account Name Lookup’ facility across all online payment systems. This mechanism would enable payers to verify the beneficiary’s account name prior to completing transactions. The implementation of such a verification layer is likely to function as a structural safeguard, acting as a significant deterrent against impersonation-driven financial frauds.

The judgment signals the beginning of a potential shift in the Court’s approach to addressing online trademark infringement. Moving beyond case-specific relief, the Court has articulated a systemic enforcement framework that recalibrates the responsibilities of intermediaries. Notably, the ruling materially expands the remedies available to trademark owners (including the ability to seek disclosure orders against intermediaries) while simultaneously raising the compliance threshold for intermediaries operating within the Indian internet ecosystem.

That said, an important aspect to note here is that, while the judgment will operate as binding precedent within Delhi, it will only hold persuasive value for courts in jurisdictions outside Delhi. Its broader national impact will therefore depend on whether other High Courts adopt a similar approach.

The key implications for both rights holders and intermediaries are discussed below.

Given that the directions issued by the Court extend beyond the existing statutory framework, the judgment has been appealed before the Delhi High Court. That said, till the time the judgment is stayed, it is likely to (a) create the expectation of greater obligations upon intermediaries, and (b) influence the courts (largely in Delhi) in assessing intermediary conduct, particularly in disputes involving trademark misuse.