Delhi High Court Judgment On Domain Name Fraud And Trademark Protection

Introduction

In a landmark ruling with significant implications for brand owners, technology companies, and Domain Name Registrars (DNRs), the Delhi High Court while deciding a series of batch matters. issued a comprehensive set of binding directions governing the registration, management, and suspension of domain names. The judgment(s) moves beyond dispute resolution and lays down systemic, forward-looking obligations aimed at curbing online fraud and trademark abuse. [1]

The directions substantially recalibrate the compliance landscape for DNRs operating in or targeting India, while strengthening enforcement tools available to trademark owners.

Background

The proceedings arose from large-scale impersonation of the well-known trademarks through deceptive domain names offering fake franchises, distributorships, and employment opportunities. Across the batch of connected matters, over 1,100 infringing domain names were identified.

The Court noted that traditional injunctions were proving ineffective due to the ease with which fraudulent actors could register fresh domain names. 

Scope and Nature of the Fraud

The Court noted that the consequences of such fraudulent activities were not merely commercial but had serious public ramifications. Evidence placed on record demonstrated substantial financial losses suffered by unsuspecting individuals, with amounts ranging from a few lakhs to over Rs. 11 crores in certain cases. The fraudsters typically replicated official websites of brand owners, used deceptively similar domain names, and collected money through bank accounts opened using false or unverifiable credentials. Despite the grant of interim injunctions in several matters, infringing domain names continued to emerge during the pendency of proceedings, indicating the inadequacy of traditional enforcement mechanisms.

Issues Before the Court

Against this backdrop, the Court framed three central issues. First, it examined the extent of the obligations and liabilities of Domain Name Registrars (DNRs) in relation to infringing domain names registered through their platforms. Second, it considered what preventive and remedial measures could be directed against DNRs and Registry Operators to safeguard trademark rights and public interest. Third, it analysed the consequences of continued noncompliance with judicial orders by DNRs, particularly those operating from foreign jurisdictions.

Key Directions to Domain Name Registrars (DNRs)

1. Enhanced Verification and KYC

• Mandatory verification of registrant details at registration and periodically thereafter
• Use of fictitious identities, unverifiable addresses, or disposable emails discouraged
• NIXI-style KYC standards endorsed
• Impact: Stronger onboarding controls; improved traceability for brand owners

2. Privacy Protection – Opt-In Only

• WHOIS masking cannot be enabled by default
• Privacy services permitted only on opt-in with informed consent
• Registrant details to be disclosed to courts, Law Enforcement Agencies (LEAs), and legitimate rights holders
• IP enforcement and fraud prevention override privacy claims
• Impact: Redesign of privacy offerings; faster access to registrant data

3. Swift Suspension and Permanent Blocking

• Infringing domains to be suspended/blocked promptly upon court orders or verified complaints
• Domains used for unlawful activity not to be recycled or re-registered
• Delay risks loss of safe harbour protection

4. Ban on Monetisation of Infringement

• No suggestion or promotion of domains incorporating well-known marks
• No premium pricing, auctions, or resale of infringing domains
• No marketing or value-added services for such domains
• Active monetisation defeats intermediary neutrality under Section 79 of IT Act

5. Binding Effect of Indian Court Orders

• Foreign DNRs serving India bound by Indian court orders
• MLAT or foreign court approval not required
• Continued non-compliance may trigger blocking under Section 69A of IT Act

6. Mandatory Cooperation with Authorities

• DNRs to share registrant, technical, and payment-related data with LEAs
• Active assistance required in fraud detection and investigation

Dynamic and “Dynamic Plus” Injunctions

The judgment affirms and expands the availability of Dynamic and Dynamic Plus Injunctions, enabling trademark owners, particularly those owning invented or well-known marks to secure relief against future domain names that are identical, deceptively similar, or alphanumeric variants, without initiating fresh proceedings for each instance.

Implications for Stakeholders

For Brand Owners

• Stronger, efficient and faster enforcement against domain-based fraud
• Reduced anonymity for infringers
• Effective tools to address repeat and future abuse

For Domain Name Registrars

• Heightened compliance and verification obligations
• Reduced scope for privacy-by-default offerings
• Increased regulatory and judicial scrutiny

For the Digital Ecosystem

• Clear signal that intermediaries function as gatekeepers, not passive conduits
• Alignment of domain governance with consumer protection and fraud prevention goals.

Conclusion

The judgment represents a comprehensive judicial response to the evolving challenges of domain name fraud and online trademark infringement. By clarifying the limits of intermediary immunity, curbing the misuse of privacy protection, and introducing dynamic enforcement mechanisms, the Court has laid down a robust framework for future cases. Importantly, the decision recognises that effective trademark protection in the digital age requires coordinated accountability across registrars, platforms, financial institutions, and regulatory authorities. In doing so, the Court has reinforced public trust in digital commerce while ensuring that technological progress does not come at the cost of legal enforcement.

Co-authored by Shambhavi Sharma.

Reference:

https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/showFileJudgment/PMS24122025SC3892022_155516.pdf