Home > Recent Judgements > DNRs to Lose Safe Harbour for Trademark Abuse: Delhi High Court Issues Sweeping Directions to Curb Online Fraud
Dec 29- 2025
DNRs to Lose Safe Harbour for Trademark Abuse: Delhi High Court Issues Sweeping Directions to Curb Online Fraud
DABUR INDIA LIMITED V. ASHOK KUMAR & ORS.
Introduction
In a far-reaching and precedent-setting judgement, the Delhi High Court has fundamentally altered the legal position of Domain Name Registrars (DNRs) in India. Holding that DNRs can no longer shelter behind the “intermediary” safe harbour when they enable trademark abuse and online fraud, Justice Prathiba M. Singh issued an exhaustive 248-page order laying down binding directions for DNRs, registry operators, banks, government authorities, and law-enforcement agencies.
The ruling arose from a series of frauds involving fake websites impersonating Dabur India Limited, but the judgement goes well beyond the facts of the case, addressing systemic weaknesses in India’s domain-name governance ecosystem.
Background of the Case
Dabur India Limited approached the Delhi High Court after discovering multiple websites and domain names falsely claiming to offer Dabur distributorships and franchises. These fraudulent platforms:
- Used Dabur’s registered trademarks, logos, and trade dress
- Displayed Dabur’s registered office address
- Created a strong impression of authenticity
- Induced unsuspecting members of the public to deposit “registration” or “franchise” fees
Once payments were made, the money was rapidly withdrawn from bank accounts having no connection whatsoever with Dabur.
Despite repeated complaints, many of these domain names continued to remain active, leading Dabur to seek judicial intervention.
Core Legal Issue
The central question before the Court was whether Domain Name Registrars can continue to claim safe harbour protection under the Information Technology Act, 2000, or whether their role in facilitating infringing domain registrations makes them complicit in trademark infringement and online fraud.
Court’s Key Findings on DNR Liability
Justice Prathiba M. Singh made a crucial distinction between passive intermediaries and commercial enablers of illegality.
The Court held that:
- DNRs actively profit from domain registrations
- They provide technical and commercial infrastructure enabling infringing registrations
- Masking registrant details by default shields fraudsters and frustrates enforcement
Accordingly, the Court ruled that DNRs cannot be treated as mere intermediaries when they knowingly or negligently enable trademark abuse.
“In such a situation, not only shall the concerned DNRs lose the safe harbour protection, the said DNRs would be liable to be treated as infringers and could be held liable to pay monetary damages as well.”
Failure to comply with court directions may even result in blocking of DNR services in India.
Findings on the Existing Regulatory Framework
The Court described the current domain-name regulation regime as “completely unsatisfactory” and urgently in need of reform, particularly in light of:
- Rising cyber fraud
- Misuse of well-known trademarks
- Links between online fraud and organized crime and terrorism
- Lack of transparency in domain registrations
This led the Court to issue comprehensive structural directions, instead of limiting relief to the parties before it.
Directions Issued by the Delhi High Court
- Directions to Domain Name Registrars (DNRs) and Registry Operators –
The Court laid down strict compliance obligations, including:
- No default masking of registrant details – Privacy protection can only be offered as an opt-in, paid service, not by default.
- Mandatory disclosure within 72 hours – Upon request from courts, law-enforcement agencies, or parties with legitimate interests, DNRs must disclose:
- Registrant name
- Contact details
- Payment and billing information
- Permanent blocking of unlawful domains – Domain names restrained by injunctions must:
- Be permanently blocked
- Never be re-released for future registration
- Expanded scope of injunctions –
- For well-known or distinctive trademarks, courts may restrain all extensions and variations
- For descriptive or generic marks, injunctions remain domain-specific unless extended
- No promotion of alternative infringing domains – DNRs must not suggest or promote alternative domains once an injunction is issued, failing which they risk losing safe harbour protection.
- Transfer of infringing domains – Infringing domains must be transferred to trademark owners upon payment of standard charges.
- Advertising and promotion restrictions – Search engines and DNRs are prohibited from promoting unlawful or infringing domains.
- Institutional compliance requirements – All DNRs must:
- Appoint grievance officers
- Follow KYC norms
- Implement Trademark Clearing House services
- Share registration data with the National Internet Exchange of India (NIXI)
- Directions to the Government and Regulatory Authorities –
Recognising that judicial orders alone are insufficient, the Court directed systemic regulatory reform:
- Stakeholder consultation – The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY), Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), DNRs, and registry operators must explore a uniform domain registration framework, similar to NIXI’s model.
- Centralised data governance – The Government should consider:
- Appointing NIXI as a nodal repository for registrant data, or
- Mandating data localisation in India, subject to compliance with the Digital Personal Data Protection Act
- Blocking non-compliant entities – NoncompliantDNRs or registry operators may face blocking under Section 69A of the IT Act.
- Coordination with ICANN – MeitY and NIXI must work with ICANN to enable affordable access to Trademark Clearing House services for Indian brand owners.
- Public verification mechanisms – The Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trade Marks may publish:
- A list of well-known trademarks
- Their authentic official websites, enabling public verification and deterring misuse
- Directions on Grant of “Dynamic +” Injunctions – The Court clarified and expanded the doctrine of Dynamic injunctions:
A Dynamic + injunction will apply automatically to future domain names where the trademark:
- Appears identically
- Appears with prefixes or suffixes likely to cause confusion
- Exists in alphanumeric or deceptive variations
However, safeguards were built in:
- If a legitimate registrant objects to suspension, the DNR may require the IP owner to obtain a specific court order before enforcement.
- Directions to Banks and Financial Institutions –
Acknowledging the financial backbone of online fraud, the Court issued mandatory banking directions:
- Beneficiary Bank Account Name Lookup – All banks must implement this facility for all online and UPI payments, as mandated by the RBI circular dated 30 December 2024.
- Strict SOP compliance – Banks must strictly adhere to the Central Economic Intelligence Bureau SOPs dated 31 May 2024 while responding to law-enforcement requests.
Legal Significance and Impact
This judgement marks a turning point in Indian cyber and trademark jurisprudence:
- Ends blanket safe harbour for DNRs involved in infringement
- Treats domain registrars as accountable commercial actors
- Strengthens trademark enforcement in the digital ecosystem
- Creates a multi-institutional framework involving courts, regulators, banks, and registrars
- Enhances consumer protection against online fraud and impersonation
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court’s ruling in DABUR INDIA LIMITED V. ASHOK KUMAR & ORS. redefines responsibility in cyberspace. By holding DNRs accountable and mandating structural reforms, the Court has sent a clear message: technological intermediaries cannot profit from illegality while disclaiming responsibility.
This judgement is likely to shape domain-name governance, trademark enforcement, and cyber-fraud prevention in India for years to comeand may well influence global best practices in regulating digital intermediaries.