For more intellectual property updates follow our WHATSAPP CHANNEL and SUNS LEGAL | LinkedIn
Introduction
On 24 December 2025, the High Court of Delhi delivered a significant judgment in Dabur India Limited v. Ashok Kumar & Ors., a commercial suit concerning large-scale misuse of a well-known trademark through fraudulent domain names and fake websites. While the suit was filed by Dabur India Limited to protect its trademark rights in the mark “DABUR”, the case raised wider concerns regarding online impersonation, consumer fraud, and the role of domain name registrars and other internet intermediaries.
The judgment is notable for the manner in which the Court addressed the recurring problem of infringing domain names reappearing under new variations, the limitations of existing enforcement mechanisms, and the balance between privacy rights and intellectual property enforcement. The Court issued extensive directions and granted a “Dynamic+ injunction” to effectively curb such digital fraud.
Facts of the Case
Dabur India Limited, the Plaintiff, is a company established in 1884 and the registered proprietor of the trademark “DABUR”, which enjoys extensive goodwill and recognition across India and internationally. The Plaintiff discovered that unknown persons had registered several domain names incorporating the mark “DABUR”, including, Daburdistributor(dot)com, Daburfranchise(dot)in, daburdistributorships(dot)in. These domain names were used to host websites that closely resembled Dabur’s official website. The websites displayed Dabur’s logo, product images, and brand details, and falsely claimed to offer distributorships, franchises, and employment opportunities on behalf of Dabur. Members of the public were induced to make payments into bank accounts provided on these websites.
The Plaintiff found that the individuals behind these websites had concealed their identities by using privacy protection services offered by Domain Name Registrars (DNRs). The contact details available through WHOIS records were either fictitious or incomplete, making it difficult to trace the offenders.
On 3 March 2022, the Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction, restraining the use of the infringing domain names and directing domain registrars to suspend them and disclose available registrant details. As further infringing domain names were discovered, the Court passed additional orders on 25 April 2022 and on subsequent dates, extending the injunction to newly identified websites.
Despite these orders, new domain names continued to surface using similar variations of the “DABUR” mark. The Plaintiff demonstrated that the fraud followed a recurring pattern: money was collected in bank accounts linked to the fake websites, withdrawn rapidly, and the domain names were abandoned and replaced with new ones. This led to the present proceedings, where the Court was required to address the issue in a comprehensive manner.
Arguments in Favour
Dabur argued that “DABUR” is a well-known and invented trademark with over a century of reputation. Any unauthorised use of the mark as part of a domain name, it was submitted, amounts to trademark infringement and passing off, as it falsely suggests an association with Dabur.
The Plaintiff contended that the misuse of its trademark was not limited to private commercial injury but involved large-scale deception of consumers, many of whom lost money after being misled by fake websites. It was argued that the Court must take into account the public interest involved in preventing such fraud.
A key submission of Dabur was that Domain Name Registrars cannot be treated as passive intermediaries. The Plaintiff argued that DNRs actively promote infringing domain names through automated suggestion tools, thereby profiting from trademark misuse. Such conduct, it was submitted, takes DNRs outside the protection of intermediary “safe harbour”.
Dabur also highlighted the absence of effective verification mechanisms. According to the Plaintiff, the failure of DNRs to conduct proper identity checks at the time of domain registration enables fraudsters to repeatedly commit offences while remaining anonymous.
Arguments Against
The Domain Name Registrars and Registry Operators argued that they are intermediaries entitled to protection under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, which grants immunity from liability for third-party content. They contended that they act only as technical facilitators and cannot be expected to monitor trademark violations proactively.
It was further argued that registrant data is protected by privacy norms, including international data protection standards. Disclosure of personal data, according to the Defendants, can be made only pursuant to specific court orders and not as a routine measure.
Some Registry Operators submitted that they lack the technical ability to block specific word strings globally without impacting legitimate domain names registered by bona fide users in other jurisdictions. They also argued that blocking their services in India under Section 69A of the IT Act would be disproportionate and would not meet the statutory requirement of affecting “public order”.
Court’s Decision
The Delhi High Court granted a Dynamic+ interim injunction restraining the use of the identified infringing domain names as well as any future domain names incorporating the trademark “DABUR” or its deceptive variations. The Court reaffirmed that domain names function as business identifiers and are entitled to protection under trademark law. In this context, the Court relied on Satyam Infoway Ltd. v. Siffynet Solutions (P) Ltd., (2004) 6 SCC 145, where the Supreme Court held that domain names are subject to the same legal principles as trademarks because they indicate the source of goods and services.
On the issue of intermediary liability, the Court relied on Christian Louboutin SAS v. Nakul Bajaj, 2018 SCC OnLine Del 7106, to explain that intermediaries lose safe harbour protection when they play an active role in facilitating infringement. The Court observed that when domain registrars use algorithms to suggest infringing domain names for profit, they cannot claim neutrality.
The Court further relied on Snapdeal Pvt. Ltd. v. GoDaddy.com LLC, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 1092, where it was held that domain registrars act in the course of trade when they recommend domain names incorporating registered trademarks.
To address the recurring nature of the infringement, the Court referred to UTV Software Communication Ltd. v. 1337X.To, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 8002. In that case, the Court recognised the concept of “dynamic injunctions” to deal with rogue websites that resurface under new identities. Applying the same reasoning, the Court expanded the relief to a Dynamic+ injunction, enabling swift action against future infringing domains without requiring fresh litigation each time.
On the question of privacy, the Court relied on Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1, to hold that the right to privacy is not absolute. The Court observed that disclosure of registrant data for the purpose of preventing crime and enforcing intellectual property rights constitutes a legitimate legal interest. The Court also noted that Section 7 of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 permits processing and disclosure of personal data to comply with court orders.
Finally, the Court held that repeated trademark infringement combined with financial fraud affects society at large and therefore falls within the scope of “public order” under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, justifying blocking directions where necessary.
Conclusion
The judgment in Dabur India Limited v. Ashok Kumar & Ors. represents a decisive judicial response to the growing misuse of trademarks in the digital ecosystem. By recognising the systemic nature of online fraud and holding intermediaries accountable where they play an active role, the Court strengthened both trademark enforcement and consumer protection.
The introduction of Dynamic+ injunctions, mandatory verification mechanisms, and clearer disclosure obligations reflects the Court’s attempt to adapt traditional legal remedies to modern technological challenges. The decision sends a clear message that entities operating in the digital space cannot evade responsibility when their platforms are used to facilitate deception and fraud, and that intellectual property rights must be meaningfully protected in the online environment.
