Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Prathiba M. Singh, J.
Dabur India Limited - Appellant
Versus
Ashok Kumar - Respondent
CS (COMM) 135 of 2022 and CS (COMM) 350 of 2020
Decided On : 02-06-2022
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. hearing conducted in hybrid mode. (Para 1) |
| 2. application for exemption from filing documents allowed. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 3. clarification sought for locking domain names only by court order. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. leave granted for filing additional documents. (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 5. fraudulent websites infringing on trademarks identified. (Para 12 , 13) |
| 6. issues with privacy protection features in domain registration. (Para 14 , 15) |
| 7. challenges in enforcing court orders against global domain registries. (Para 16 , 17) |
| 8. need for clarity in enforcing court orders against non-local registrars. (Para 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 9. registrar to disclose blocked website details. (Para 21) |
| 10. compliance with court orders confirmed by defendants. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27) |
ORDER
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
I.A.6317/2022 (for exemption) in CS (COMM) 135/2022
2. This is an application filed on behalf of Defendant No. 4, the Public Domain Registry, seeking exemption from filing original/certified, clear copies, prayer copies and documents with proper margins.
3. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
4. Accordingly, I.A.6317/2022 is disposed of.
I.A.9363/2022 (for clarification of order dated 25.04.2022) in CS (COMM) 135/2022
5. This is an application filed on behalf of Defendant No.5-Hosting Concepts B. V, for clarification of order dated 25th April, 2022 passed by this Court.
6. Vide the said order the Court directed Defendant No. 5 to lock/block domain names which may be complained of by the Plaintiff, subject to the Plaintiff filing an affidavit before this Court.
7. The clarification sought of this order is to the effect that Defendant no. 5 is to lock/block domain names found by the Plaintiff, only after a Court order specifically finds such domain names are infringing.
8. Issue Notice. Let reply be filed within four weeks.
I.A.6230/2022 (for additional documents) in CS (COMM) 350/2020
9. This is an application on behalf of Defendant No. 26, GoDaddy.com LLC, seeking leave for filing additional documents.
10. The additional documents are taken on record, subject to the objection that the Plaintiff can address at the time of making submissions.
11. Accordingly, I.A.6230/2022 is disposed of.
CS (COMM) 135/2022 &I.A.3423/2022
CS (COMM) 350/2020 & I.As.7456/2020, 9624/2020, 9629/2020, 996/2021, 9204/2022
12. The present two suits have been filed after discovering that several fraudulent websites bearing Plaintiffs' well-known marks `AMUL' and `DABUR' are soliciting business from vulnerable customers.
13. In CS(COMM) 135/2022, vide the order dated 3rd March, 2022, after a detailed hearing, it was noted that there were various domain names and websites, which were operating with the name DABUR such as www.daburdistributor.com, & https://daburdistributorships.in. Monies were being collected from vulnerable customers through the said websites, and therefore, the following order was passed:
"23. In order to curb any malpractice or any monetary harm to the public as also to the franchisees and distributors who may pay monies to the websites, and to protect the Plaintiff's rights in various intellectual properties, which are being violated on the websites of the Defendants, this Court directs as under:
(1) Defendant Nos.4 & 5 shall immediately block the domain names, as also the websites https://www.daburdistributor.com, https://daburdistributorships.in, and www.daburfranchisee.in. Status quo shall also be maintained in respect of the said domain names and the same shall be locked with immediate effect. The Defendants 4 & 5 are restrained from transferring the said domain names or creating any third-party interest on the same.
(2) Defendant Nos.2 & 3 i.e., DoT and MEITY shall issue directions to all ISPs to block the said websites as also any other websites, except the Plaintiff's websites, bearing the mark `DABUR'.
(3) Defendant Nos.4 & 5 shall also disclose to ld. Counsel for the Pla
The court reinforced the necessity for swift measures against trademark infringement through domain name registration, emphasizing enforcement against fraudulent websites and the transparency of regi....
The central legal point established is the need for stringent measures to enforce compliance with court orders by DNRs and the importance of due diligence by intermediaries in the digital domain.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the legal position regarding steps that could be taken against non-compliant Domain Name Registrars and the challenges faced by law enforcement ....
Domain Name Registrars must comply with court orders and appoint Grievance Officers under IT Rules, 2021, or face potential legal actions for non-compliance.
The judgment establishes the importance of protecting intellectual property rights, territorial jurisdiction in infringement cases, and the enforcement of injunction orders through ICANN regulations.
The judgment mandates regulatory bodies to ensure proper verification of domain name registrants and emphasizes accountability for non-compliance with court orders involving trademark rights and bank....
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.
The court emphasized the importance of strictly abiding by the injunction order and not extending it to any other domain names not covered by the order.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
