The internet has transformed how businesses reach consumers, but it has also quietly created new avenues for deception. What once required physical imitation fake labels, counterfeit goods, misleading shopfronts can now be achieved with a single domain name and a convincing website. The Delhi High Court’s judgment in Dabur India Limited v. Ashok Kumar & Ors., [CS (COMM) 135/2022] delivered on December 24, 2025 by Hon’ble Justice Prathiba M. Singh, is a response to this evolving reality. The decision stands out not merely for protecting a well-known trademark, but for confronting the structural weaknesses of the digital ecosystem that allow fraud to flourish.

Background of the Case:

1. Dabur India Limited claims leadership in Ayurvedic and FMCG sectors under the brand name “Dabur”.
2. The dispute arose when Dabur discovered that several fraudulent websites were operating under domain names incorporating the word “Dabur” such as www.daburdistributorships.in,  www.daburdistributor.com, www.daburfranchisee.in, etc. These websites falsely presented themselves as official Dabur platforms by using the company’s branding, logos, and visual identity. Members of the public were invited to apply for distributorships or franchises and were often required to pay registration fees or deposits.
3. Dabur argued the Registrants’ details were hidden through ‘privacy protection’ feature offered by the Domain Name Registrars (hereinafter “DNRs”). By the time complaints were raised, the funds had often been misappropriated and the websites had disappeared.
4. Dabur alleged the damage was both financial and reputational. Consumers were misled, and its goodwill built over a century was at risk. Recognising the continuing harm, the Court had earlier, on 3rd March 2022, passed an interim injunction restraining the registrants of these infringing domain names from using Dabur’s marks.

The present judgment builds upon that order and lays down comprehensive directions to prevent such misuse in the future.

Dabur’s Contentions:

1. Well-Known Trademark Status: “DABUR” is a well-known trademark, enjoying the highest level of statutory and common law protection and decades of continuous and extensive use.
2. Dishonest Adoption by Defendants: Defendants used the mark “Dabur” in domain names with words like “franchise”/ “distributor,” creating an impression of authenticity that misled consumers. Fraudulent domain names were used to host websites impersonating Dabur, displaying its logos and product images, and soliciting payments under the guise of offering distributorships and franchise opportunities. These acts amounted to complete impersonation, deceiving consumers and causing significant financial losses.
3. Digital Ecosystem Challenges: Dabur highlighted systemic issues:
   1. Registrants’ identities were masked by default through privacy protection features offered by DNRs.
   2. WHOIS records contained fictitious or incomplete details, making enforcement difficult.
   3. Each time a domain was blocked, new infringing domains were registered, creating a cycle of fraud.
4. Accountability of Intermediaries: Dabur argued that DNRs and Registry operators should not enjoy blanket safe harbour under Section 79 of the IT Act when they fail to exercise due diligence or comply with Court orders. Non-compliant DNRs should face consequences, including blocking of their services under Section 69A of the IT Act.
5. Need for Systemic Directions: Dabur sought directions to DNRs and Registries for disclosure of Registrant details and prevention of misuse of privacy masking.

Contentions of Domain Name Registrar (DNRs) and ICANN:

1. Compliance with Existing Framework: Defendants argued that DNRs and Registry Operators already comply with the due diligence requirements under the IT Act and Intermediary Rules, 2021 through their Domain Name Registration Agreements and grievance redressal mechanisms.
2. Safe Harbour Protection: They contended that safe harbour under Section 79 of the IT Act cannot be diluted merely because DNRs offer value-added services. Intermediaries should not be held liable unless they fail to act upon receiving actual knowledge through a Court order or government notification.
3. Privacy and Data Protection: DNRs maintained that privacy protection features are in compliance with global regulations like GDPR, and India’s DPDP Act.
4. Opposition to Blanket Injunctions: Defendants opposed blanket injunctions preventing registration of any domain names containing well-known marks, arguing that such measures are impractical and beyond their technical capabilities. They asserted that only specific infringing domains identified by Courts should be blocked.
5. Role Limitation: DNRs claimed they are intermediaries and cannot proactively monitor or block future registrations, as trademark rights are territorial and require judicial determination of infringement.

Court’s Ruling and Observations:

1. Well-Known Trademark Protection: The Court reaffirmed that “DABUR” is a well-known trademark, enjoying the highest level of protection. Misuse in domain names was inherently deceptive and not a case of descriptive use or coincidence.
2. Impersonation vs. Confusion: The Court distinguished between mere confusion and complete impersonation. The Defendants were not just creating uncertainty but were posing as Dabur itself, which undermines consumer trust in online transactions.
3. Need for Systemic Reform: The Court emphasized that enforcement cannot be limited to blocking individual domains. Broader measures, including technological safeguards and mandatory KYC, are essential to curb misuse.

Key Directions Issued:

1. To DNRs and Registry Operators:
   1. No Default Privacy Masking: Registrant details must not be masked by default, privacy services shall be offered as a value-added service upon payment of additional charges.
   2. Mandatory Disclosure: DNRs must disclose complete Registrant details (name, administrative contact, technical contact, email, address, mobile numbers, payment info) within 72 hours of a valid request from law enforcement agencies (LEAs) or Courts.
   3. Permanent Blocking: Infringing domain names must be suspended and permanently blocked to prevent re-registration and, in some cases, transferred to the trademark owner
   4. Strict KYC Verification: Implement mandatory KYC verification for domain registrations in line with the Indian Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT-In) norms.
   5. Grievance Officers: DNRs must appoint Grievance Officers in India for compliance with Court orders.
2. To Government and Regulators:
   1. Framework for ISP-Level Blocking: Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) and Department of Telecommunication (DoT) to create a framework for Internet Service Providers (ISP) level blocking and enforce compliance by DNRs.
   2. Data Repository: Consider nomination of a nodal agency such as NIXI as the data repository agency for India.
   3. Action against Non-Compliance: Penalize non-compliant Registrars under Section 69A of the IT Act and related rules.
3. ‘Dynamic +’ injunction: The Court endorsed Dynamic + Injunctions, allowing automatic extension of protection to future infringing domain names without separate litigation where the trademark appears as such, with prefixes or suffixes, or in alphanumeric variations
4. To Banks: Implement RBI’s ‘Beneficiary Bank Account Name Lookup’ for all online payments including payment by UPI through applications such as Google Pay, Paytm, etc.

Our Comment:

This judgment stands as a landmark in Indian trademark law, not only for its robust protection of well-known marks but also for its nuanced approach to the digital ecosystem. The Delhi High Court has crafted a careful equilibrium, empowering brand owners with dynamic and forward-looking remedies against online infringement, at the same time recognizing the legitimate operational realities and responsibilities of intermediaries such as domain name registrars and registry operators. By issuing practical, technology-aware directions, the Court has ensured that the evolving legal framework fosters both accountability and fairness. This balanced perspective acknowledges the distinct, and sometimes competing, interests of brand owners seeking effective enforcement and intermediaries navigating compliance, privacy, and technical constraints in a rapidly changing commercial environment.