CASE SUMMARY

DABUR INDIA LIMITED

V.
ASHOK KUMAR AND ORS

Citation : 2023/DHC/001070
CS (COMM) 135/2022 & I.As. 3423/2022, 9363/2022, 12156/2022, 16505/2022,
1221/2023, 1222/2023

Parties: (1) TATA SKY LIMITED V. S G ENTERPREISES – TATA SKY SALES AND
SERVICES AND ORS.
(2) COLGATE PALMOLIVE COMPANY & ANR. V. NIXI & ANR.
(3) MOTHER DAIRY FRUIT & VEGETABLE PVT. LTD V. KUMAR PRAHLAD & ANR.
(4) ULTRATECH CEMENT LIMITED & ANR. V. WWW.ULTRATECHCEMENTS.COM &
ORS.
(5) DHARAMPAL SATYAPAL LIMITED V. RAJNIGANDHA DISTRIBUTORS PRIVATE
LIMITED & ORS
(6) MONTBLANC SIMPLO GMBH V. MONTBLANCINDIA.COM & ORS.
(7) JOCKEY INTERNATIONAL INC V. WWW.JOCKEYFRANCHISE.COM & ORS
(8) MICROSOFT CORPORATION & ANR V. MS CZONE SOLUTIONS & ORS
(9) INDIAMART INTERMESH LIMITED V. MR. AKASH VERMA & ORS
(10) MCDONALDS CORPORATION & ANR V. NATIONAL INTERNET EXCHANGE OF
INDIA & ORS
(11) ITC LIMITED V. ASHOK KUMAR & ORS
(12) SHOPPERS STOP LIMITED V. M/S SHOPPERSTOP & ORS
(13) MICROSOFT CORPORATION & ANR V. PCPATCHERS TECHNOLOGY PRIVATE
LIMITED & ORS
(14) GODREJ PROPERTIES LTD V. ASHOK KUMAR & ANR
(15) SNAPDEAL PRIVATE LIMITED V. GODADDYCOM LLC AND ORS
(16) MICROSOFT CORPORATION & ANR V. TECH HERACLES OPC PRIVATE
LIMITED & ORS.
(17) TATA SONS PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR V. M/S ELECTRO INTERNATIONAL &
ORS
(18) HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LIMITED V. NITIN KUMAR SINGH & ORS
(19) KAMDHENU LIMITED V. RAGHUNATH VIRDHARAM BISHNOI AND ORS
(20) HT MEDIA LTD V. POOJA SHARMA & ORS
(21) KAJARIA CERAMICS LIMITED V. GODADDY.COM LLC & ORS
(22) MICROSOFT CORPORATION & ANR V. VACATION RENTAL SERVICES PRIVATE
LIMITED & ORS
(23) BAJAJ FINACE LTD & ANR V. NIKO DAS & ANR
(24) HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LTD & ANR V. UNILEVERR1.IN & ORS
(25) AMAZON SELLER SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR V. AMAZONBUYS.IN &
ORS
(26) FASHNEAR TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED V. MEESHO ONLINE SHOPPING
PVT. LTD. & ANR

1
 (27) GUJARAT COOPERATIVE MILK MARKETING FEDERATION LTD & ANR V.
AMUL-FRANCHISE.IN & ORS
(28) BAJAJ FINANCE LIMITED V. REGISTRANT OF WWW.BAJAJ-FINSERVE.ORG &
ORS
(29) THE HIMALAYA DRUG COMPANY & ORS V. ASHOK KUMAR & ORS

Facts: In the given set of suits filed by the petitioner deals with illegal use of their
trademark, brand name by unauthorized individuals who register such marks as part
of their domain names and seeking relief against the unauthorized and misuse of
their marks and names. The main issue come up in these cases is the rapid growth of
such fallacious and felonious domain names has led to big damage to the public at
large, people who have erroneously paid big amount of money to the website
owners/domain name owners. So to prevent such malicious acts the court order to
appoint an grievance officers by Domain name registrar. A very concerning issue
was that individuals registering for the illegal domain were not accessible on the
website. There was an order dated 3rd August, 2022 with recommendations by
Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology 1,  Controller General of Patents,
Designs & Trade Marks2, Department of Telecommunication3, NIXI and Delhi Police
4
on various aspects :
i. How the information of the person who is registering the domain name, can be
corroborated by the DNRs, during registration of domain names;

ii. How the privacy protect feature and proxy servers were made accessible:
whether it was only upon a particular registrant opting for given option, instead
of regular feature as portion of a 'bundle’;

iii. Whether if the owner of a well-known brand or a trademark contacts any DNR,
then how the data of registrant can be provided, without the intercession 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. Whether a particular link provided by the Controller General of Patents, Designs

& Trade Marks (CGPTDM), cover the list of well-known marks, kept up by the
Registrar of the Trademarks, or declared by any Court of law, which can then be
utilized for accelerated blocking of domain names consisting of such marks;

vi. Whether if there’s 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

1
https://www.meity.gov.in
2
https://ipindia.gov.in

3
https://dot.gov.in

4
https://delhipolice.gov.in

2
 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. Whether If any commandments are issued to the DNRs, and the same are not
implemented, how implementation of the said orders can be ensured;

viii. As observed that domain names were registered only after payment being made
through credit card, or other online payment methods or apps, how 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.

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.Insofar as those DNRs which have appointed Grievance Officers are
concerned, including New fold Group and Google, it is made clear that they ought to
function in accordance with law including the IT Rules, 2021. In such cases 5, Plaintiffs
are permitted to make advance service in cases relating to domain names registered
with the said DNRs to the Grievance Officers through the contact details of the
grievance officers. It would then be expected in such cases, that the said DNRs would
enter appearance or facilitate the compliance and give effect to the orders or
directions passed by Courts. To this the action taken was On 16.11.2022, an email
has sent to the Jia Rong Low the Vice President, Stakeholder Engagement and
Managing Director Asia Pacific ICANN regarding the appointment of Grievance
Officers by ICANN accredited DNRs ICANN has also submitted its response to the
MeitY. It is pertinent to mention here that, in response ICANN has not provided the
details of Grievance officer of ICANN accredited DNR. ICANN has mentioned that
ICANN's relationship with ICANN accredited Registrars is merely contractual. ICANN
does not provide legal counsel to ICANN accredited registrars and does not
coordinate their participation in, or responses to, Court directives. Accordingly,
ICANN does not currently have any information with regard to the appointment of
Grievance Officers by the registrars identified. The second issue was No other DNRs
have made any submissions before this Court today. MeitY is directed to look into
the issue of appointment of Grievance Officers by the other DNRs who are parties in
these suits.To which A copy of the Correspondence with ICANN 1s placed at
Annexure - 7.If the said DNRs have not appointed Grievance Officers, one week’s
time shall be given to them for making the appointments in accordance with the IT
Rules, 2021. If the said compliance is not made by DNRs, MeitY is free to proceed in
accordance with law against such DNRs who are offering their domain name
registration, hosting and related services in India, without complying with the local
laws. A status report be put up by MeitY by the next date, on this aspect including
the steps taken by MeitY pursuant to the directions contained above.As of today,
MeitY does not have powers to take action against noncompliant domain name
registrars. On the order of the Hon’ble Court, action on blocking of website and
5
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/58826814

3
email IDs would be taken. The power of such blocking is vested with DoT through
ISPs. Another issue was that the first sets of DNRs are those who offer various
Global Top Level Domains (GTLDs) such as (.com), (.net) and (.org). Some such DNRs
have agreed to appoint grievance officers and implement orders passed by Indian
Courts/Authorities. However, a number of DNRs have either not responded to MEITY
or have belatedly refused to comply with the orders passed by this Court. • The
second set of DNRs which operate in India are (.in) DNRs. In so far as (.in) DNRs are
concerned, they are stated to have appointed Grievance Officers. On 14th
September, 2022, during the hearing, it was brought to the attention of the Court
that in many cases under consideration, there was a mismatch between the name of
the account holder of the bank account, and the name given in the billing details.
The fact that whenever payments are made into a bank account, the name of the
account holder and the name of the recipient are not matched and it is only the
account number which is matched, is leading to innocent consumers being duped.
From the submissions made it appears that currently there is no verification done by
banks qua the name of the account holder at the time of payment transaction. A
common status report on behalf of Special Cell of Delhi Police dated 8 th February,
2023 has been filed by Ms. Hetu Arora Sethi, ld. ASC giving the status of investigation
in all the 30 suits. The ld. ASC submits that in some cases the Delhi Police has taken
cognizance, though, there were no victims who were traceable in Delhi.

Issues: (1) Whether both the beneficiary account number and the account holder’s
name have to match while receiving payments or deposits, into a particular account
is concerned?

(2) 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?

(3) 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?

Holding : In the initial stage of the case the court ordered for the appointment of the
grievance officers by Domain Name Registrars (DNR). 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. The
court of law directed that MEITY/DoT/the appropriate authority shall take steps
action in accordance with the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and
Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 against DNRs who do not agree to comply
with the said Rules or do not appoint grievance officers or implement orders of
Indian Courts/Authorities, d that the concerned MEITY/DOT officials shall peruse the
various orders which are passed in these proceedings prior to taking any action
under the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics
Code) Rules, 20216. Steps in respect thereof, in terms of Rules be taken within four
weeks. The fact that whenever payments are made into a bank account, the name of
the account holder and the name of the recipient are not matched and it is only the
6
https://www.meity.gov.in/content/information-technology-act

4
account number which is matched, is leading to innocent consumers being duped to
this the court order directions as In this regard, it has also been noticed that the
Reserve Bank of India, impleaded as Defendant No.38 in CS(COMM) 350/2022, has
not entered appearance today Let fresh notice be issued to the nominated counsel
for the Reserve Bank of India for appearance in this matter.Registry to also give
intimation to the nominated counsel of RBI and attach with the same, the order of
this Court dated 14th September, 2022. The RBI shall also place its stand on record
on the aspect of discrepancies between account holders’ name and the name of the
account itself and recommendations as to the way forward.Further the court’s
opinion the RBI7 needs to take steps in order to curb malpractices as has been seen
in all these suits where amounts have been accepted by banks in the names of well-
known companies but the bank account stands at the name of some third party.The
submissions with respect to Privacy Protection feature will have to be submitted on
the next date of hearing.

Reasoning : As the hearing of case will be done on 27 th March, 2023 so the overall
reasoning of the case cannot be stated however the reasons behind the orders
passed by the court of law can be understood as the direct relations with the orders
passed indicated the lack of execution of the plan and orders with respect to illegal
domain name and failure in finding the people shows that verification process
needed to be revisited hence it might led to a bigger loss (Intermediary Guidelines
and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 against DNRs who do not agree to comply
with the said Rules or do not appoint grievance officers or implement orders of
Indian Courts/Authorities. On the question of Bank transfer where only the account
number to be verified the reasoning given by the court was In the Indian context,
many different ways in which beneficiary names can be written, it becomes
extremely challenging to perfectly match the name field contained in the electronic
transfer instructions with the name on record in the books of the destination bank.
This leads to manual intervention hindering Straight Through Processing (STP) and
causing delay in credit or due return of non-credited instructions. Any manual
intervention not only delays completion of the instruction but also provides scope
for error and fraudulent intent. Responsibility for accurate input and successful
credit lies with the remitting customers and the originating banks. The role of
destination banks is limited to affording credit to beneficiary's account based on
details furnished by the originating bank. In order to handle surging volumes in a
limited time window, some banks use name matching software, while a few others
employ a risk- based approach based on the nature and value of transfer.

Outcome : The outcome of the case is in pendency as the judgement of the case has
not been given. However it will enhance the laws and regulation with respect to
DNRs, misuse of names and marks as well as the transaction between the parties.

Significance : Formulating and providing privileges to the general public for their
beneficiary is the second most important task performed by the government, however,
enacting laws to govern such privileges provided to the general public still remains at the
first position.That in many instances, the goods reach much earlier than the documents. Hence

7
https://rbi.org.in

5
the thrust by the Government to digitalize bills of exchange and promissory notes, so that they
can be processed in real time.To ensure that transactions do not depend on physical Power of
Attorneys for delegating power to the relevant stakeholders, a further amendment was carried
out to the First Schedule of the IT Act, whereby, Power of Attorneys empowering any entity
regulated by the Regulatory Authorities would now come under the governance of the IT Act.
This will enable Power of Attorneys to be digitally executed so that the entire transaction is a
seamless flow. These would been the significance of case with respect to the current scenario.