The main legal point established is the limitation on the power of domain name registrars, such as defendant no.1 NIXI, to adjudicate similarity/deceptive similarity of domain names and issue general injunctions against future registrations.

Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.

The plaintiff instituted this suit for (a) permanent injunction to restrain the defendant no.3 Vishwanath Suchirla from passing off the trade name and trade mark "TATA SKY" of the plaintiff as his own, whether as part of a trade mark, trade name, corporate name, domain name etc.; (b) permanent injunction restraining defendant no.1 National Internet Exchange of India (NIXI) and defendant no.2 GoDaddy Operating Company, LLC from registering or continuing with existing registration of any domain name which is identical or deceptively similar to the official domain name www.tatasky.com of the plaintiff; (c) mandatory injunction directing defendants no.1 to 3 to block access to and take down the offending domain names (i) http://tataskybangalore.co.in, (ii) http://tataskydelhi.co.in, (iii) http://tataskymumbai.co.in, (iv) http://tataskypune.co.in, (v) http://tataskychennai.co.in, and, (vi) http://tataskyhyderabad.co.in listed in paragraph no.10 of the plaint and to de-register them and to extinguish the said domain names from the registry; (d) mandatory injunction directing defendant no.3 to take necessary steps so that offending websites do not reflect in the search results related to "TATA SKY" on search engine websites such as Google and Yahoo; and, (e) ancillary reliefs of delivery and damages.

2. The suit came up before this Court first on 2nd September, 2016 when, while issuing summons/notice thereof, defendant no.3 Vishwanath Suchirla was restrained from passing off the trade name and trade mark "TATA SKY" whether as part of trade mark, trade name, corporate name, domain name etc. and the defendants were restrained from registering or continuing with the existing registration of any domain name which is identical or deceptively similar to the official domain name of the plaintiff i.e. www.tatasky.com including but not limited to the domain names and websites listed in paragraph no.10 of the plaint.

3. The defendant no.3 Vishwanath Suchirla failed to appear despite service and the counsel for the plaintiff states that the defendant no.3 has already been proceeded against ex-parte.

4. The counsel for the defendant no.1 and the counsel for defendant no.2 appear and pleadings qua them have been completed.

5. The counsel for the defendant no.1 and the counsel for the defendant no.2 have no objection to the reliefs claimed by the plaintiff against the defendant no.3 being granted. In fact, the counsel for the plaintiff states that the offending domain names have already been blocked by the defendants, by putting a server lock thereon.

6. The plaintiff even otherwise, on pleadings and documents has made out a case for grant of reliefs insofar as against defendant no.3 and the need to relegate the plaintiff to ex-parte evidence against defendant no.3 is not felt.

7. A decree is accordingly passed, in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant no.3 Vishwanath Suchirla, of permanent injunction in terms of prayer paragraphs (a) and (b) of the plaint dated 4th/5th August, 2016.

8. The counsel for the plaintiff does not press the other reliefs against the defendant no.3 Vishwanath Suchirla since the defendant no.3 has not contested the suit.

9. Decree sheet against defendant no.3 be prepared.

10. The counsel for defendant no.1 and counsel for defendant no.2 say that defendants no.1 and 2 have no objection, upon this court being satisfied in this regard, to issuance of a direction against them in terms of prayer paragraphs (b) and (c) of the plaint dated 4th/5th August, 2016 and as summarized above, but only qua the domain names mentioned in paragraph no.10 of the plaint. On enquiry, the counsel for the plaintiff states that the plaintiff opts for extinguishment of the domain names listed in paragraph no.10 of the plaint.

11. A decree is accordingly passed, in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants no.1 and 2, to forthwith extinguish the domain names listed in para no.10 of the plaint.

12. Decree sh