top of page

Protecting the ‘Online Soul’ of Modern Enterprise: The Landmark Dabur Judgment on Domain Name Fraud and Dynamic Injunctions

INTRODUCTION & HOOK


In the high-stakes theater of global commerce, a domain name is no longer a mere technical identifier; it has evolved into the "Online Soul" of a business. As Justice Prathiba M. Singh eloquently noted, a website is the digital equivalent of a physical shop address, serving as the storefront where brand reputation and consumer trust intersect. However, this digital storefront is increasingly targeted by unscrupulous registrants who weaponize infringing domain names to commit large-scale fraud. By masquerading as established brands, these bad actors orchestrate the erosion of business integrity, siphoning funds from gullible consumers through fake offers. For the modern brand owner, protecting this "Online Soul" is a legal imperative to prevent incalculable loss to the public and the irreparable dilution of goodwill.



SHORT SUMMARY


The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Dabur India Limited vs. Ashok Kumar and Ors [CS (COMM) 135/2022] [2025:DHC:11862] dated December 24, 2025 held that the protection of well-known trademarks against fraudulent domain name registrations is essential to curb systemic cyber fraud and financial deception. Utilizing Court Citation 2025:DHC:11862, the Court established that Domain Name Registrars (DNRs) and other intermediaries bear a significant responsibility in the digital ecosystem. The ruling emphasizes a multi-stakeholder approach to ensure that trademark rights are not rendered illusory by untraceable registrants, mandating robust coordination between digital infrastructure providers, financial regulators, and law enforcement.


FACTS OF THE CASE


The Plaintiff, Dabur India Limited, initiated a commercial suit (hereinafter referred to as "the writ petition") seeking a permanent injunction and damages to safeguard its intellectual property. Central to the dispute is the "DABUR" mark, a well-known trademark coined in 1884 with deep-rooted goodwill. The Plaintiff discovered that unknown third parties were registering domain names that utilized its mark to host deceptive websites. These sites mimicked the Plaintiff’s official digital presence to offer fraudulent job opportunities, dealerships, and franchises.


The Plaintiff identified 7 distinct infringing domain names and their respective DNRs:

The Court scrutinized the "Modus Operandi" of these registrants, finding a sophisticated pattern of deception. Unknown individuals utilized fictitious WHOIS data, often linking registrations to email addresses created via temporary mobile numbers or public cyber cafés. These websites lured victims into making digital transactions—such as a ₹25,000 registration fee for a fake distributorship—into temporary bank accounts. These funds were typically withdrawn immediately, often from accounts opened using fake PAN or Aadhar cards, leaving the accounts empty before the Plaintiff could act.


On March 3, 2022, the Court issued a protective order (hereinafter referred to as "the interim order") to restrain these activities. The Plaintiff argued that the "DABUR" mark’s well-known status and the deceptive "Passing Off" of products/services by the Defendants necessitated immediate judicial intervention, especially given the difficulty in tracing registrants who operate from foreign shores or hide behind inaccurate data.


ISSUE


  1. Whether the Domain Name Registrars (DNRs) have specific obligations and liabilities regarding infringing domain names registered on their platforms, and whether current protections are sufficient for safeguarding the intellectual property rights of third parties?

  2. What measures should be implemented by DNRs and Registry Operators to safeguard trademark rights and prevent the registration of fraudulent domains?

  3. What measures should be directed by the Court against DNRs who refuse to comply with Court orders?



HELD BY THE COURT


The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Dabur India Limited vs. Ashok Kumar and Ors [2025:DHC:11862] held that:


The Court observed that in the modern era, a domain name serves as the "Online Soul" of a business. Misuse of such digital addresses results in the systemic erosion of the integrity and goodwill of established business houses. The Court emphasized that protecting trademarks in this context is not merely about private property rights but is a vital public interest measure to stop large-scale cheating and financial fraud that causes incalculable loss to innocent consumers.


The Court determined that effective enforcement requires a comprehensive multi-stakeholder approach. For any injunction to be effective, directions must involve: a. Domain Name Registrants; b. Domain Name Registrars (DNRs); c. Domain Name Registry; d. ICANN (Internet Corporation on Assigned Names and Numbers); e. Banks; f. Reserve Bank of India (RBI); g. Telecom Service Providers; h. MeitY and DoT (Ministries overseeing internet and telecom access); i. Law Enforcement Agencies.


Regarding the interim injunction granted on March 3, 2022, the Court affirmed that the Plaintiff had established an undeniable prima facie case. Given that the "DABUR" mark was coined in 1884 and possesses unquestionable reputation, any delay in granting relief was deemed fatal. The Court highlighted that unscrupulous registrants often migrate fraudulent content to new domains as soon as one is blocked, necessitating a more proactive legal remedy.


Consequently, the Court applied the principle of "Dynamic +" injunctions. As a cybersecurity legal consultant, I must emphasize that "Dynamic +" injunctions are a revolutionary tool; they allow the Plaintiff to extend the existing injunction to newly discovered infringing domains that follow the same pattern without the need to file a fresh suit for every iteration. This ensures the law keeps pace with the agility of cyber-fraudsters.


Finally, the Court held that DNRs and Registry Operators cannot remain passive intermediaries. They must fulfill due diligence obligations and appoint Grievance Officers to ensure compliance with judicial mandates, particularly in cases involving "Passing Off" under Section 27 of the Trademarks Act, where the integrity of the market is at stake.


RELEVANT SECTIONS


  • Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Pertains to the jurisdiction of the Court where the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises.

  • Section 27 of the Trademarks Act, 1999 – Relates to the rights of a trademark owner regarding unregistered marks and the common law remedy for Passing Off.

  • Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Governs the requirements and procedures for the grant of temporary injunctions and interlocutory orders.


PARI MATERIA / CASES REFERRED


The Court relied upon the established principles of "Well-known Trademarks" and the necessity of "Interim Injunctions" to prevent irreparable injury. It affirmed that when a mark—such as "DABUR"—has achieved the status of a well-known mark through over a century of use, the standard for judicial protection is heightened. The Court also drew upon the evolving jurisprudence of "Dynamic Injunctions," expanding them into the "Dynamic +" category to address the systemic nature of domain name fraud and the challenges of the "Privacy Protect" features used by DNRs to shield the identities of infringers.

 


__________________________________________________________


DISCLAIMER: The views expressed are strictly of the author and NLF Tax and Legal Advisory. The contents of this article are solely for informational purposes and for the reader’s personal non-commercial use. It does not constitute professional advice or a recommendation of the firm. Neither the author nor the firm and its affiliates accept any liabilities for any loss or damage of any kind arising out of any information in this article nor for any actions taken in reliance thereon. Further, no portion of our article or newsletter should be used for any purpose(s) unless authorized in writing, and we reserve the legal right for any infringement on usage of our article or newsletter without prior permission

Comments

Our Core Services.png

No plans available

Once there are plans available for purchase, you'll see them here.

bottom of page