Delhi High Court Signals End of Anonymity in Domain Registrations to Curb Trademark Misuse

Delhi High Court Signals End of Anonymity in Domain Registrations to Curb Trademark Misuse

Introduction

In a landmark decision aimed at combating online fraud, trademark abuse, and even terror-linked financial crimes, the Delhi High Court has issued sweeping directions redefining the legal responsibility of Domain Name Registrars (DNRs). Justice Prathiba M Singh held that DNRs can no longer seek refuge as passive intermediaries where their conduct facilitates trademark infringement and online deception.

The judgment was delivered in a batch of matters led by Dabur India Limited v. Ashok Kumar & Ors, and marks a decisive shift in how courts view the role of internet infrastructure providers in unlawful digital activity.

Factual Background

The case arose from Dabur India Limited’s complaint that multiple websites and domain names were falsely claiming to offer Dabur distributorships and franchises. These websites extensively misused Dabur’s trademarks, logos, trade dress, and even displayed Dabur’s registered office address, creating a strong illusion of legitimacy.

Members of the public were allegedly induced to pay registration or franchise fees. Soon after the payments were made, the funds were siphoned off to bank accounts having no connection with Dabur, causing financial loss to unsuspecting victims and reputational harm to the company.

Procedural Background

Dabur approached the Delhi High Court seeking injunctive relief against the infringing domain names and associated fraudulent activities. During the proceedings, the Court examined not only the immediate acts of trademark infringement but also the systemic failures that allowed such fraud to flourish particularly the role played by domain name registrars, banks, and regulatory authorities. The Court eventually delivered an extensive 248-page judgment, reflecting the gravity and scale of the issue.

Issues

1. Whether Domain Name Registrars can continue to claim safe harbour as intermediaries despite facilitating trademark infringement and online fraud.

2. Whether the existing regulatory framework governing domain registration is adequate to address large-scale digital deception.

3. What institutional and procedural safeguards are necessary to curb misuse of well-known trademarks through domain names.

4. Whether courts should adopt stronger injunctive mechanisms to deal with evolving forms of online infringement.

Contentions of the Parties

Plaintiff: Dabur contended that the fraudulent websites were a clear case of trademark infringement, passing off, and consumer deception. It argued that DNRs were enabling such fraud by allowing anonymous registrations, masking registrant details by default, and continuing to monetise registrations of domains mimicking well-known trademarks. It was submitted that unless accountability was fixed at the level of registrars, such fraudulent activity would continue unabated.

Defendants: Various domain registrars, intermediaries, and individuals appeared through a large panel of counsel. They broadly asserted intermediary protection under the Information Technology Act, 2000, and claimed limited control over how domain names are ultimately used by registrants.

Reasoning and Analysis

Justice Prathiba M Singh undertook a detailed examination of the role played by Domain Name Registrars in the digital ecosystem. The Court rejected the argument that DNRs are mere neutral intermediaries, observing that the services offered by them actively enable misuse of trademarks by facilitating registrations of deceptively similar domain names.

The Court noted that such services generate revenue not only for registrars but also for registry operators, while simultaneously empowering persons with illegal motives. In this context, the Court held that DNRs cannot wash their hands of responsibility when infringement is brought to their notice. It categorically ruled that in cases of trademark abuse, DNRs may be treated as complicit actors rather than passive intermediaries.

The Court warned that failure to act upon court orders would have serious consequences, including loss of safe harbour protection under the IT Act and exposure to claims for monetary damages. It further cautioned that non-compliant DNRs could face blocking of their services in India through judicial orders. Beyond the immediate dispute, the Court delivered a scathing assessment of the current regulatory framework, terming it “completely unsatisfactory” and in urgent need of reform. It emphasised that unchecked anonymity in domain registrations has become a breeding ground for fraud, impersonation, and financial crime.

Decision

The Delhi High Court restrained the use of multiple infringing domain names and directed their suspension and blocking. Going beyond case-specific relief, the Court issued comprehensive directions to domain name registrars, government authorities, and banks to address systemic failures enabling online trademark fraud. It mandated greater transparency in domain registrations, curtailed default masking of registrant details, and warned that non-compliant registrars could lose safe harbour protection and face blocking of their services in India. The Court also endorsed the use of Dynamic+ injunctions to curb future infringing domain variations and directed regulatory coordination to create a more robust and uniform domain registration framework, marking a decisive shift towards accountability in the digital ecosystem.

In this case the plaintiff was represented by Mr. Anirudh Bakhru, Mr. Ankur Chhibber, Mr. Prabhu Tandon, Mr. Avijit Sharma, Ms. Kripa Pandit, Mr. Christopher Thomas, Mr. Bhanu Gupta, Ms Archita Mahlawat, & Mr. Sazid Rayeen, Advocates.

The defendant was represented by Senior Advocates Darpan Wadhwa and Chander M Lall along with others.