Compliance with IT Rules, 2021, verification of account holder names in bank transactions, and privacy protection features are crucial in addressing issues related to domain name misuse.

JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. This Court has been considering the above matters from time to time. The present set of suits and proceedings have been filed before this Court, by a large number of trademark and brand owners, seeking reliefs against misuse of their marks / names / brands by unauthorized persons, who register such marks as part of their domain names. The primary issue that arises in these cases is that the proliferation of these fraudulent and illegal domain names has resulted in enormous damage to innocent and gullible members of the public, who have mistakenly paid large sums of money to the said website owners/domain name owners. From time to time, directions have been issued by this Court for blocking and for removal/suspension of the domain names and pulling down of the websites.

The appointment of grievance officers by Domain Name Registrars (DNR) and giving effect to orders passed by this Courts and other authorities.

3. It is seen in these matters that the details for the persons registering the illegal domain are usually not available on the website. In view of the same, vide order dated 3rd August, 2022, recommendations were to be given by MEITY after consulting various stakeholders, including the CGPTDM, DOT, NIXI, Delhi Police, etc on the following aspects:

"(i) The manner in which the details of the domain name registrants, can be verified by the DNRs, at the time of registration of domain names;

(ii) The manner in which the privacy protect feature and proxy servers are made available: whether it is only upon a specific registrant choosing the said option, rather than as a standard feature as part of a 'bundle';

(iii) If the owner of a well-known brand or a trademark contacts any DNR, the manner in which the data related to the registrant can be provided, without the intervention of a Court, or any governmental agency;

(iv) Whether the identity of the owner of a domain name, which consists of a registered trademark or a known brand can be verified at the time of registration itself;

(v) If a specific link could be provided by the CGPTDM, covering a list of well-known marks, maintained by the Registrar of the Trademarks, or declared by any Court of law, which can then be used for expedited blocking of domain names consisting of such marks;

(vi) If there can be any agency that can be identified in India, such as NIXI, who can be made a repository of the data concerning the registrant, or an agency through which the data could be transmitted by the DNR, upon verification by NIXI, in case a trademark owner has a grievance against a specific domain name;

(vii) If any directions are issued to the DNRs, and the same are not implemented, the manner in which the implementation of the said orders can be ensured;

(viii) Since almost all, domain names are registered only after payments are made through credit card, or other online payment methods or apps, is it possible, upon request by any identified agency, to provide the information relating to the person who has made the payment, to the trademark owners. This should be discussed in the aforementioned meeting to be held on 30th August, 2022."

4. In addition, a further aspect to be considered by the MEITY and DoT as recorded in the order dated 14th September, 2022, was the issue of whether grievance officers had been appointed by the DNRs and in case of no information regarding the same, MEITY was to take steps in accordance with law. A status report detailing the steps taken by MEITY was also to be filed. The said status report reflecting the action taken by the MEITY has been placed on record. The relevant part of the same is as under: