The rules of the Bar Council of India prohibit law firms from advertising and soliciting work through communication in the public domain. This website is meant solely for the purpose of information and not for the purpose of advertising. Kings & Alliance LLP does not intend to solicit clients through this website. We do not take responsibility for decisions taken by the reader based solely on the information provided in the website. By clicking on ‘ENTER’, the visitor acknowledges that the information provided in the website (a) does not amount to advertising or solicitation and (b) is meant only for his/her understanding about our activities and who we are.
By continuing to use this site you consent to the use of cookies on your device as described in our Cookie Policy
In Dabur India Limited v. Ashok Kumar & Ors., Justice Prathiba M. Singh of the Delhi High Court issued extensive directions aimed at addressing trademark infringement, domain-name abuse, online impersonation and associated financial fraud.
Given the practical significance of these directions for Domain Name Registrars (DNRs), Registry Operators, Government Authorities, Banking Institutions, Payment Ecosystem Participants and Enforcement Agencies, we have compiled the operative directions in one place for ease of reference.
This resource reproduces the relevant directions from the judgment and is intended to serve as a practical reference document for stakeholders.
(A) Directions to DNRs and Registry Operators
(i) The DNRs and Registry Operators shall, henceforth, not resort to masking of details of the registrants, administrative contact and technical contact on a default basis as an ‘opt-out’ system. At the time of registration of the domain names, a specific option shall be provided for the Registrant and it is only if the said Registrant chooses for privacy protection, that the said service shall be offered as a value added service upon payment of additional charges. The additional charges shall not be made a part of the default package for registration of domain names.
(ii) Whenever any entity or individual having legitimate interest, law enforcement agencies (LEAs) or the Courts, request for disclosure of data relating to any infringing or unlawful domain name, the following data shall be disclosed by the concerned DNR as soon as possible but not later than 72 hours in terms of the Intermediaries Guidelines 2021:
(a) Name of the Registrant;
(b) Administrative contact;
(c) Technical contact;
(d) Addresses of the above mentioned persons/entities;
(e) Mobile numbers of the above mentioned persons/entities;
(f) Email address of the above mentioned persons/entities;
(g) Any payment related information such as details of credit card, debit card, UPI number, payment platform identities, bank account details, etc., which may be available with the DNR;
(h) Details of any value added services such as hosting of website, brokerage, or any other services offered by the DNR or by Registry concerned.
(iii) (v) (vi) If any particular domain name is restrained by an order of injunction or has been found to be used for illegitimate and unlawful purposes, the said domain name shall remain permanently blocked and shall not be put in a common pool in order to disable re-registration of the same very domain name by other DNRs. The appropriate steps in this regard shall be taken by the concerned Registry Operator to ensure that all DNRs having an agreement uniformly give effect to the said direction.
(iv) In the case of trademarks/brands, which are well-known or are invented, arbitrary or fanciful marks, which have attained reputation/goodwill in India, if a Court of Law directs that there would be an injunction on making available the infringing domain name with different extensions or mirror/redirect/alphanumeric variations, the same shall be given effect to by the DNRs and no alternate domain name shall be made available in respect of such brands and marks.
(v) Upon an injunction being issued by the Court in respect of any domain name and the same being communicated to the DNRs, the DNRs shall ensure that no alternative domain name is promoted or being suggested to a prospective Registrant. Any promotion of alternative domain names of an injuncted domain name would disentitle the concerned DNR for safe harbour protection under Section 79 of the IT Act.
(vi) In respect of descriptive and generic marks, the restraining/injunction orders would be qua the specific domain name and any extension of restraining/injunction order for other infringing domain names would be with the intervention of the Joint Registrar before whom the application under Order I Rule 10 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 along with affidavit shall be filed and the injunction would be extended. Where any party is aggrieved by the order of the Joint Registrar, the application may be moved or placed before the ld. Single Judge.
(vii) Upon orders being passed by a Court, the infringing domain name shall be transferred to the Plaintiff/trademark owner/brand owner, upon payment of usual charges.
(viii) Search engines and DNRs shall not provide any promotion or marketing or optimization services to infringing and unlawful domain names.
(ix) All DNRs offering services in India shall appoint Grievance Officers within a period of one month from today failing which they would be held as non-compliant DNRs.
(x) Service by email to the respective Grievance Officer’s details would be henceforth sufficient service for Court orders and any DNRs who insist upon services through MLAT or through other modes of services shall be held to be non-compliant DNRs.
(xi) In appropriate cases where an entity has repeatedly not complied with orders of the Court, and in the opinion of the Court it is a case where the interest of society at large is being adversely affected, such as cases of frauds, the Court may direct the appropriate authority to block access to the said entity under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 read with Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguard for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009.
(xii) All Registry Operators having valid agreements with ICANN shall take appropriate steps to implement the Trademark Clearing House services and make the same available to all brand owners & registered proprietors of trade marks.
(xiii) All DNRs offering services in India or to customers in India shall undertake verification of Registrant’s details at the time of registration and periodic verification of the same. The verification shall be done in terms of KYC requirements mentioned in Circular No. 20(3)/2022CERT-In dated 28th April, 2022 issued by Indian Computer Emergency Response Team. This is in line with the NIXI Accreditation Agreement.
(xiv) All DNRs who are enabling registration of domain names which are administered by NIXI as a Registry Operator shall comply and provide requisite registration data to NIXI within one month of this judgment and also update the same on a monthly basis.
(xv) The following directions are issued to MeitY, MHA and other relevant Government authorities:
(a) The Government shall hold a stake holder consultation with all DNRs and Registry Operators offering services in India and explore the possibility of putting in place a framework similar to the one used by NIXI by all DNRs for the purpose of domain name registration.
(b) Consider nomination of a nodal agency such as NIXI as the data repository agency for India with which all the Registry Operators and the DNRs would maintain details related to Registrants on a periodic basis so that the said details are made available to the Courts, LEAs and the governmental authorities for the purpose of enforcement of orders of Courts and for preventing misuse. Alternatively, DNRs shall be directed to localize the data in India for easy access. Irrespective of the decision, it is made clear that processing of personal information would be strictly in terms of the DPDP Act and applicable Rules.
(c) In case of a DNR or Registry Operator, which does not comply with the orders of the Courts or with request from LEAs, the offering of services of such DNRs or Registry Operator be blocked by MeitY and DoT under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 read with Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguard for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009.
(d) MeitY along with NIXI shall coordinate with ICANN to enable brand owners in India to avail of TMCH facilities on reasonable terms and conditions so that they can receive notifications whenever any conflicting /infringing domain names are proposed to be registered by any third parties across the globe.
(xvi) The CGPDTM could also consider publishing the list of well-known marks along with the official and authentic website details of the trademark owners so that if any consumer or user wishes to verify the authentic website, the same would be made possible through the website of the Intellectual Property Office. The same shall also act as sufficient notice to all potential Registrants as to the actual websites of the well-known marks/brands.
(C) Directions qua grant of ‘Dynamic +’ injunction
(xvii) The dynamic + injunction would apply under the following circumstances:
(i) Wherever the brand/trademark appears as it is in the domain name;
(ii) Wherever brand/trademark appears with a prefix or suffix which could lead to confusion;
(iii) Wherever the brand/trademark appears as an alphanumeric variation.
(xvii) Whenever there is a legitimate Registrant who opposes the suspension of the domain name, if the same is communicated by the said Registrant to the concerned DNR, the DNR may then ask the IP owner to obtain a Court order.
(xviii) All banks shall mandatorily implement the ‘Beneficiary Bank Account Name Lookup’ facility in terms of the RBI circular dated 30th December, 2024 for all online payments including payment by UPI through applications such as Google Pay, Paytm, etc.
(xix) All banks shall also abide by the Standard Operating Procedures dated 31st May, 2024 issued by Central Economic Intelligence Bureau for processing and responding to requests received from LEAs.
Case: Dabur India Limited v. Ashok Kumar & Ors.
Court: Delhi High Court
Coram: Justice Prathiba M. Singh
Decision Date: 24 December 2025
Expositor(s): Adv. Aparna Shukla
