The Delhi High Court has delivered a landmark judgment aimed at tackling the growing misuse of domain names linked to well-known brands. In Dabur India Limited v. Ashok Kumar & Ors (2025), the court laid down far-reaching guidelines that significantly tighten obligations on domain name registrars (DNRs), registry operators, and related intermediaries operating in India.

The ruling addresses a long-standing problem: anonymous individuals registering lookalike domain names, impersonating established brands, and using those domains to defraud the public.

Why the Court Intervened

The court was hearing multiple cases brought by trademark owners who faced a common pattern of abuse:

• Domains registered using the full or distinctive part of a trademark

• Fraudsters posing as brand representatives

• Victims misled through fake job offers, counterfeit sales, and deceptive services

• Payments routed through temporary or falsely created bank accounts

Investigations revealed that many domain registrations were backed by unverified or fake details, including email IDs created via temporary mobile numbers or public internet facilities. Privacy shields offered by DNRs often made it nearly impossible to trace the real perpetrators.

The court noted that financial fraud running into millions of rupees had occurred due to this systemic failure.

Mandatory e-KYC for Domain Registrations

One of the most significant directions issued by the court is the requirement for mandatory electronic Know-Your-Customer (e-KYC) verification by domain registrars.

• DNRs must collect verified registrant details

• Verification must be periodic, not a one-time exercise

• Anonymous or unverifiable registrations will no longer be acceptable

The court made it clear that privacy cannot be used as a shield to obstruct investigations by law enforcement or judicial authorities.

Limits on Whois Privacy and Anonymity

The court ruled that:

• Whois privacy or proxy services cannot be enabled by default

• Privacy protection may be offered only as a paid, opt-in service

• Registrant details must be disclosed within 72 hours when requested by:

  • Courts

  • Law enforcement agencies

  • Parties with a legitimate legal interest

DNRs can no longer refuse disclosure by citing privacy obligations.

Grievance Officers and Faster Legal Communication

All domain registrars operating in India must:

• Appoint a Grievance Officer based in India within one month

• Publish contact details publicly

• Accept service of notices, court orders, and legal communications via email

The court ruled that email service is legally sufficient, and DNRs cannot insist on routing requests through the Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty (MLAT) process, which often causes delays.

Blocking and Permanent Suspension of Fraud Domains

The judgment introduces a strong deterrent against repeat misuse:

• Domains found to be used for illegitimate purposes must be permanently blocked

• Such domains cannot be released back into the pool for re-registration

• On court orders, infringing domains may be transferred to the trademark owner upon payment of standard charges

Expanded Scope of Injunctions

The court clarified that injunctions will:

• Apply not only to the infringing domain

• But also to all confusingly similar variations

Additionally:

• DNRs must not suggest alternative domain names that resemble blocked or infringing domains

• Failure to comply will result in loss of safe harbour protection under Indian law

Search engines and registrars have also been directed to:

• Stop promoting

• Stop marketing

• Stop providing optimisation or advertising services
  to infringing domains.

Role of Banks, Regulators, and ICANN

Recognising that domain fraud is part of a wider digital ecosystem, the court issued directions to:

• Reserve Bank of India (RBI)

• Banks involved in processing fraudulent payments

• Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology

• National Payments Corporation of India (NPCI)

• ICANN

Banks must implement a “beneficiary bank account name lookup” facility for online payments to reduce impersonation-based fraud.

Registry operators with valid ICANN agreements have been directed to:

• Implement Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH) services

• Make TMCH accessible to Indian trademark owners

Government’s Role Going Forward

The court has ordered the government to:

• Conduct stakeholder consultations

• Explore a formal domain name registration framework

• Establish a nodal agency

• Block non-compliant domain registrars

• Coordinate with ICANN to ensure Indian brand owners can fully benefit from TMCH protections

Outcome for Dabur and Brand Owners

In the Dabur case, the court:

• Extended protection to the Dabur trademark

• Ordered takedown of infringing websites

• Set a strong precedent for future cases involving digital brand abuse

Why This Ruling Matters

This judgment marks a turning point in India’s approach to domain name governance. It shifts responsibility upstream to registrars and registries, strengthens brand protection, and prioritises consumer safety.

For businesses, especially internet-first and consumer-facing brands, the ruling reinforces the importance of:

• Trademark registration

• Active domain monitoring

• Swift legal enforcement

For registrars, it signals a new era of accountability, transparency, and compliance in India’s digital economy.