The internet has transformed how businesses reach consumers, but it has also quietly created new avenues for deception. What once required physical imitation through fake labels, counterfeit goods, or misleading shopfronts can now be achieved with a single domain name and a convincing website. The High Court of Delhi’s judgment in Dabur India v Ashok Kumar & Ors, delivered on December 24 2025, 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 to the case
Dabur India claims leadership in the Ayurvedic and fast-moving consumer goods sectors. The dispute arose when Dabur discovered that several fraudulent websites were operating under domain names incorporating “Dabur”, such as www.daburdistributorships.in, www.daburdistributor.com, and www.daburfranchisee.in. These websites 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.
Dabur argued the registrants’ details were hidden through the ‘privacy protection’ feature offered by the domain name registrars (DNRs). By the time complaints were raised, the funds had often been misappropriated and the websites had disappeared.
Dabur alleged the damage was 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 March 3 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.
The parties’ contentions
Dabur contended the following:
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.
Dishonest adoption – the defendants used the mark ‘Dabur’ in domain names with words such as “franchise” and “distributor”, creating a misleading impression of authenticity. 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.
Digital ecosystem challenges – Dabur highlighted the following systemic issues:
Registrants’ identities were masked by default through privacy protection features offered by DNRs;
WHOIS records (public domain name registration data) contained fictitious or incomplete details, making enforcement difficult; and
Each time a domain was blocked, new infringing domains were registered, creating a cycle of fraud.
Accountability of intermediaries – Dabur argued that DNRs and registry operators should not enjoy a blanket safe harbour under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (the IT Act) when they fail to exercise due diligence or comply with court orders. Non-compliant DNRs should face consequences, including their services being blocked under Section 69A of the IT Act.
Need for systemic directions – Dabur sought directions to DNRs and registries for the disclosure of registrant details and the prevention of misuse of privacy masking.
The DNRs and the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers contended the following:
Compliance with the existing framework – DNRs and registry operators already comply with the due diligence requirements under the IT Act and the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 through their domain name registration agreements and grievance redressal mechanisms.
Safe harbour protection – the 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.
Privacy and data protection – privacy protection features comply with global regulations such as the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation, and India’s Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023.
Opposition to blanket injunctions – blanket injunctions preventing the registration of domain names containing well-known marks are impractical and beyond the defendants’ technical capabilities. Only infringing domains identified by courts should be blocked.
Role limitation – the DNRs claimed they are intermediaries and cannot proactively monitor or block future registrations, as trademark rights are territorial and require judicial determination of infringement.
The ruling
The High Court of Delhi made the following observations:
Well-known trademark protection – ‘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.
Impersonation versus 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.
Need for systemic reform – enforcement cannot be limited to blocking individual domains. Broader measures, including technological safeguards and mandatory know-your-customer (KYC) verification, are essential to curb misuse.
The following key directions were issued:
To DNRs and registry operators:
No default privacy masking – registrant details must not be masked by default; privacy services shall be offered as a value-added service upon the payment of additional charges;
Mandatory disclosure – DNRs must disclose complete registrant details (name, administrative contact, technical contact, email, address, mobile numbers, payment information) within 72 hours of a valid request from law enforcement agencies or courts;
Permanent blocking – infringing domain names must be suspended and permanently blocked to prevent re-registration and, in some cases, transferred to the trademark owner;
Strict KYC verification – implement mandatory KYC verification for domain registrations in line with the Indian Computer Emergency Response Team norms; and
Grievance officers – DNRs must appoint grievance officers in India to ensure compliance with court orders.
To the government and regulators:
Framework for internet service provider (ISP)-level blocking – the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology and the Department of Telecommunications to create a framework for ISP-level blocking and enforce compliance by DNRs;
Data repository – consider the nomination of a nodal agency such as the National Internet Exchange of India as the data repository agency for India; and
Action against non-compliance – penalise non-compliant registrars under Section 69A of the IT Act and related rules.
Dynamic+’ injunctions – the court endorsed dynamic+ injunctions, allowing the 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.
To banks – implement the Reserve Bank of India’s beneficiary bank account name lookup facility for all online payments, including payment by a unified payments interface through applications such as Google Pay or Paytm.
RNA’s 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 High Court of Delhi has crafted a careful equilibrium, empowering brand owners with dynamic and forward-looking remedies against online infringement, at the same time recognising the legitimate operational realities and responsibilities of intermediaries such as DNRs and registry operators.
By issuing practical, technology-aware directions, the court has ensured that the evolving legal framework fosters 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.
