By Deepika Srivastav and Tithi Aggarwal
On December 24, 2025, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court passed a judgement in Dabur India Limited v. Ashok Kumar & Ors. [CS (COMM) 135/2022] delivered by Hon’ble Justice Prathiba M. Singh, which has set new precedents governing the liability of domain name registrars and related digital service providers as well as treats large scale misuse of well-known marks in domain names as a systemic cyber fraud.
Background of the Case: The Digital Fraud Faced by Dabur
Dabur India Limited, one of India’s oldest and most recognisable consumer brands, operating under the well-known brand “Dabur” discovered a network of fraudulent websites operating through domain names incorporating its trademark, including daburdistributorships.in, daburdistributor.com, and daburfranchisee.in, among others. These websites falsely portray affiliation with the company — including portals inviting visitors to apply for distributorships, franchises and employment with Dabur. These websites deceptively used the company’s trademarks, logos and trade dress to induce payments and personal information from public.
In the said case, Dabur argued that not only were these domain names infringing on its well-known trademark rights and amounting to passing off, but the registrants’ identities were concealed using privacy protection services provided by Domain Name Registrars (DNRs).
By the time complaints were raised, the websites would often vanish, and the collected funds would already have been siphoned off, thereby inflicting financial losses for consumers and significant threat to Company’s reputation and goodwill – an asset built over more than a century.
The Court had earlier granted an interim injunction on March 03, 2022, restraining the use of Dabur’s trademarks in the impugned domain names. The final judgment expands upon this interim relief and lays down wide-ranging measures to curb similar abuses in the future.
Dabur’s Arguments
Dabur asserted that “DABUR” qualifies as a well-known trademark, entitled to the highest degree of protection under both statutory and common law owing to its extensive and uninterrupted use over several decades. The company argued that the defendants had deliberately adopted the mark ‘Dabur’ in domain names combined with terms such as “franchise” and “distributor,” creating a false impression of official association to mislead consumers. Dabur also highlighted deeper structural problems within the digital ecosystem. Registrant’s identities were masked by default, WHOIS records frequently contained false or incomplete information, and enforcement efforts became futile as new infringing domains surfaced each time an existing one was taken down.
On this basis, Dabur contended that DNRs and Registry operators should not claim blanket safe harbour under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, particularly where due diligence obligations were not met or court orders were ignored. The company sought systemic directions compelling disclosure of registrant details and curbing the misuse of privacy masking services.
Contentions of Domain Name Registrar (DNRs) and ICANN
The Domain Name Registrars and ICANN defended their practices by asserting compliance with the existing statutory framework under the IT Act and the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021. They argued that their contractual arrangements and grievance redressal mechanisms satisfied due diligence requirements.
The Core Legal Conflict: Intermediary Immunity vs Active Facilitation
The dispute was whether Domain Name Registrars (DNRs) and related service providers could hide behind the concept of intermediary immunity, largely derived from Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 — which typically shields intermediaries from liability for third-party content and actions, provided they comply with due process and takedown norms.
DNRs contended they were neutral actors merely facilitating the technical act of domain registration, with no control over the ultimate use of those domains. In their view, they should not be held accountable for the misuse of domains by fraudsters.
The Delhi High Court’s Response: Eroding ‘Safe Harbour’ Where Necessary
Hon’ble Justice Prathiba M. Singh critically re-evaluated the role played by intermediaries in the digital environment and proposed the following forward-looking remedies:
- Mandatory KYC and verification of data: DNRs must verify registrants’ identities through electronic Know Your Customer (e-KYC) and such information should be maintained and verified on a periodic basis, ensuring availability of correct and valid information.
- Disclosure Requirements: It was observed that in contexts of trademark abuse and online fraud, DNRs cannot remain passive once they are put on notice; their conduct contributes to the perpetuation of infringement and deception, rather than merely facilitating a neutral technical service. Hon’ble Justice Prathiba M. Singh directed that registrant information cannot be masked by default and masking services can only be availed as an add-on service. Further, essential details must be disclosed within 72 hours upon request by courts or law enforcement.
- Permanent Blocking and Non-Re-registration: The Court observed that intermediaries that profit from or facilitate repeated registrations of deceptively similar domains risk losing safe-harbour protection under the IT Act and may be exposed to liability if they fail to act on infringement and fraud. In this context, the Court directed that the infringing domains be suspended permanently, which further prevents from re-registration.
An outdated framework enabling domain piracy
The antiquated registration framework, accepting incomplete information for domain registration encourages cybersquatting conduct and facilitates domain abuse for dishonest or commercial purposes. This trend is further reflected in the steady rise in domain recovery proceedings initiated by trade mark owners before the National Internet Exchange of India (NIXI) in recent years (table showcasing the same is attached below), reinforcing the need for stronger legal protections and specialised legal frameworks to curb cybersquatting as businesses increasingly rely on the internet for expansion.
KEY TAKEAWAYS
The Hon’ble Delhi High Court’s ruling in Dabur India Limited v. Ashok Kumar & Ors. represents a landmark shift in addressing domain name abuse and intermediary liability in India, recognising large-scale misuse of well-known trademarks as systemic cyber fraud rather than isolated infringement. By narrowing the scope of safe-harbour protection under the IT Act and imposing affirmative obligations on domain name registrars, such as, mandatory KYC, limited privacy masking, timely disclosure of registrant details, and permanent suspension of infringing domains, the Court has addressed the structural enablers of online deception, a move likely to significantly deter cybersquatting and other forms of digital fraud.