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 banking regulations.

ORDER

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. Pursuant to the previous orders, various stakeholders have made submissions regarding the status of these matters. The same are deal with hereinafter.

Recommendations by the MEITY/DoT

2. Vide previous orders, the DoT/MEITY had been directed to file its recommendations with respect to various issues that had arisen in these matters.

3. However, the recommendations have not been submitted. Today, Mr. Shankar, ld. CGSC, submits that a new coordinating officer - Mr. Deepak Goyal is in-charge of these cases and is coordinating with the various agencies for giving recommendations on behalf of the Government. MEITY is also yet to hold meetings with the CGPTDM to obtain its views before finalizing the recommendations.

4. This Court notes that vide previous order date 3rd August, 2022, recommendations were to be given by DoT/MEITY after consulting various stakeholders, 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."

5. In addition, a further aspect to be considered by the MEITY and DoT as recorded in the order dated 14th September, 2022, is the issue of whether grievance officers had been appointed by the DNRs listed therein 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 was also to be filed.

6. Further as recorded in the previous order dated 14th September, 2022, it was pointed out by various Plaintiffs that the bank account names and the names of the ban