Delhi High Court Halts Transfer of ‘Bima Sugam’ Domains to IRDAI-Backed Body, Says Goodwill Must Be Proven Before Claiming Ownership

Delhi High Court Halts Transfer of ‘Bima Sugam’ Domains to IRDAI-Backed Body, Says Goodwill Must Be Proven Before Claiming Ownership

Introduction

The Delhi High Court has stayed a Single Judge’s order that directed the transfer of domain names — www.bimasugam.com and www.bimasugam.in to the Bima Sugam India Federation, pending resolution of a trademark and passing off dispute with A. Range Gowda, a private individual and insurance agent. A Division Bench comprising Justice C Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla passed the interim order on October 30, 2025, while hearing an appeal against the Single Judge’s order dated October 16, 2025.

Factual Background

The dispute centers around the ownership and commercial use of the mark “BIMA SUGAM”, a term associated with the IRDAI-backed digital insurance marketplace project.

A. Range Gowda, an insurance professional, registered the domain names bimasugam.com and bimasugam.in in October 2022, claiming continuous use of the same since registration.

Meanwhile, the Bima Sugam India Federation — an industry consortium supported by the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India (IRDAI) — asserted that it had coined and publicly announced the name “BIMA SUGAM” in August 2022, well before Gowda’s registration, to represent a national unified insurance distribution platform. The Federation alleged that Gowda’s domain registrations were deceptive and intended to mislead consumers into associating his services with the IRDAI initiative.

Procedural Background

In May 2025, the Single Judge had granted an interim injunction restraining Gowda from using the disputed domain names. Later, on October 16, 2025, the Single Judge made the injunction absolute, directing that the domains be transferred to the Federation during the pendency of the suit. Gowda challenged this order before the Division Bench, arguing that such a transfer amounted to granting final relief at an interim stage and would prejudice his rights as the lawful registrant of the domains.

Issues

1.  Whether the Single Judge erred in directing transfer of the disputed domain names before adjudication of the main suit.
2.  Whether the Federation had established sufficient goodwill and prior use of the mark “BIMA SUGAM” to sustain a claim of passing off.
3.  Whether the balance of convenience lay in favour of maintaining status quo or allowing the Federation to use the disputed domains.

Contentions of the Parties

Appellant (A. Range Gowda): The appellant contended that he lawfully registered the domains before any commercial use by the Federation and had continuously used them since October 2022. It was argued that the Federation had no registered trademark and relied solely on common law rights, without establishing goodwill or consumer recognition within the limited period between August and October 2022. Gowda asserted that the Single Judge’s direction to transfer domains amounted to premature execution of final relief and violated the principles of natural justice.

Respondent (Bima Sugam India Federation): The Federation argued that it had conceived the mark “BIMA SUGAM” as part of an IRDAI-endorsed initiative and had announced the project months before Gowda’s domain registration. It contended that Gowda’s registration was an act of bad faith and amounted to cyber-squatting. It relied on the Single Judge’s findings that the mark was inherently associated with the national insurance ecosystem, justifying immediate protection from misuse.

Reasoning and Analysis

The Division Bench disagreed with the Single Judge’s direction for immediate transfer of the domains, holding that such an order would effectively allow the Federation to exploit the domains commercially during the pendency of the proceedings, despite ownership being contested. Moreover, referring to the Supreme Court’s decision in Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha v. Prius Auto Industries Ltd., the Bench reaffirmed that three essential elements — goodwill, misrepresentation, and damage must be proven to establish passing off.

The Court observed that the Federation’s usage of the mark “BIMA SUGAM” before Gowda’s registration lasted barely two months, from August to October 2022, which was insufficient to demonstrate established goodwill. Moreover, the Single Judge’s order lacked any finding regarding the existence of such goodwill or consumer association.

The Bench concluded that Gowda had made out a prima facie case, that balance of convenience was in his favour, and that maintaining the status quo was necessary to prevent irreparable prejudice. Accordingly, the Division Bench stayed the Single Judge’s order insofar as it directed transfer of the domain names.

Implications

The decision reinforces that domain name disputes must be adjudicated on evidence of goodwill and prior user, not merely on public announcements or regulatory associations. It clarifies that courts should exercise caution before directing transfer of domain names at the interim stage, particularly when ownership is contested. The decision also underscores that passing off claims under common law require strict proof of goodwill and misrepresentation, and that interim injunctions cannot result in de facto transfer of property rights before trial.

In this cas the appellant was represented by Mr. J. Sai Deepak, Sr Advocate with Mr. Paritosh Dhawan, Advocates. Meanwhile the respondent was represented by Mr. Akhil Sibal, Sr Adv. with Ms. Riddhie Bajaj, Ms. Swati Sharma, Mr. Rohin Koolwal and Mr. Pundreek Dwivedi, Advocates.