Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
MICROSOFT CORPORATION & ANR. ..... Plaintiffs
Through: Mr. Saif Khan Mr. Achuthan Sreekumar, Mr. Prajjwal Kushwah
Ms. Imon Roy Mr. Achyut Tiwari Ms. Kanupriya Chawla, Mr. Swastik Bisarya Mr. Rohil Bansal Mr. Shivang Sharma, Advs.
Mr Pravin Anand, Ms Vaishali R Mittal & Mr. Shivang Sharma, Advs.
Through: Mr. Sumit Nagpal and Ms. Aashta Sood, Advocates for D-1, 2 & 3.
(M:9911995000)
Mr. Akshay Goel, Mr. Shivam Narang & Mr. Lalit Kashyap, Advocates.
Mr. Varun Chugh, SPC
JUDGMENT
This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
I. BACKGROUND
1. What is a domain name? A domain name is the address of a business/individual/entity on the internet. The website built on the domain name is like a shop being built at the physical address of a business. In the internet age, domain names/websites form the ‘Online Soul’ of a business. In order to maintain the distinctive nature of the business, domain names are usually registered using the brand name, house name or trade mark with which the business is associated. Any misuse of the same by registration of fraudulent domain names and creation of fake websites results in erosion of the integrity and goodwill of the business house and name, as also leads to consumer deception.
2. This batch of several commercial suits have been filed by various trademark owners seeking injunctions against misuse of their trademarks through registration of domain names by unknown persons. These domain names consist of either the full trademark or a distinctive part of the trademark or the brand name and are being used for illegitimate means in order to derive monetary benefits. The domain names that are registered are being misused in various forms such as: i.Registration of the domain names posing themselves as the Plaintiffs and collecting money under the garb of offering jobs, dealerships, franchisees, etc. The infringing domain name is used to create a website that hosts almost identical or similar content as that of the Plaintiffs’ website. In some infringing websites similar logos or marks as that of the Plaintiffs’ are used along with misleading or deceptive information thereby enticing the general public into making payments through digital transactions into bank accounts which are not connected to the Plaintiffs. ii.Further, the infringing domain names are being registered for the purpose of hosting websites where counterfeit and pass-off products are being offered for sale or have been sold. iii.Fraudulent domain names are being used to host websites for providing services posing as the Plaintiffs.
3. The suits were instituted in respect of certain infringing domain names, with the concerned Domain Name Registrars (DNRs) impleaded as parties, as the identity of the Registrant could not be verified from the WHOIS records. The WHOIS details disclosed largely fictitious or incomplete particulars, with the sole contact point being an email address that does not disclose the identity of the Registrant. The DNRs possess only this limited information, and the remaining data provided at the time of registration such as addresses and mobile numbers is typically inaccurate. In the absence of any robust verification mechanism, even the email IDs used for registration are often created through temporary mobile numbers or public places such as cyber cafés, and BSI data frequently indicates that such Registrants are based on foreign shore. Consequently, obtaining the email address alone is insufficient, and it becomes exceedingly difficult to identify or trace the actual individual or entity responsible for registering the impugned domain name.
4. In cases where the bank account details are provided for the purposes of collecting money, a separate enquiry is required to be launched against the person who has opened this bank account. On most occasions they are opened using mobile numbers which are again untraceable, or by way of the PAN card or Aadhar card which may be fake. The next level of enquiry then moves to the mobile number and the telecom service provider who usually collects some documents. However, the address etc., are again not traceable.
5. In effect, therefore, by registering domain names using a well-known mark or a registered trademark, a whole network is built only to deceive innocent and gullible consumers and members of the public. The bank account is operated for a temporary period and after the money is collected the same is withdrawn and even before the trademark owner is able to take action, the bank account is almost empty. Thereafter, even after the Court grants an interim injunction against the infringing domain names, there are further domain names/ websites registered and opened which follow the same pattern as described above. The whole gamut of fraudulent transactions and cyber fraud is being committed by those unknown persons and entities merely by registering infringing domain names and hosting websites that are misleading and containing deceiving content.
6. Thus, various issues arise for adjudication in these matters which are not limited to the present suit but are systemic issues which need to be addressed with significant changes and measures to be implemented by different stakeholders in the system. At the interim stage, for any effective injunction order to be passed, directions would be required to be issued to – a. Domain Name Registrants – Person registering the domain name; b. Domain Name Registrars (DNRs) – Entity enabling the registration of the domain name; c. Domain Name Registry – The Registry under which the DNR operates; d. ICANN – Internet Corporation on Assigned Names and Numbers – the overall regulator of the Internet; e. Banks – where the bank accounts are opened by the infringers; f. Reserve Bank of India – Banking regulator which had to take steps to curb fraudulent activities through banking channels; g. Telecom service providers – companies which provide SIM cards and associated telecom services h. MeiTY and DoT – Ministries which oversee the access to the internet in India and also regulate the internet/telecom service providers i. Law Enforcement Agencies – Police and other investigating agencies
7. In this batch of suits, the protection of the brand names, trade marks etc., is not only for the purpose of protecting the Intellectual Property and goodwill of businesses but to also to take effective steps against the largescale cheating and deception of innocent consumers and users who are suffering huge losses due to misuse of trade marks and brand names on fraudulent domain names/websites.
II. I.A. 10520/2020 (under Order XXXIX Rule 1&2 of CPC)
8. The present suit has been filed by the Plaintiffs – M/s. Microsoft Corporation and M/s. Microsoft Corporation India Private Limited, seeking, inter alia, permanent and mandatory injunction, dilution, rendition of accounts and damages in respect of infringement of its trademark “MICROSOFT”, “HOTMAIL”, “OUTLOOK”, “OFFICE365”, and its logos, “,
9. The Plaintiffs had initially preferred I.A. 10520/2020 under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking, inter alia, ad-interim ex-parte injunction restraining various websites/entities involved in infringement of Plaintiff’s trademarks etc. The reliefs sought in the said application are as under: “a. A decree for ad interim injunction restraining the Defendants No.1-3, their affiliates, directors, members, employees, contractors, officers, servants and agents and all other persons acting on their behalf as the case may be, from using Plaintiffs’ trademark “MICROSOFT”,, “HOTMAIL”, “OUTLOOK”, “OFFICE365”, “, and its other formative marks as that of Plaintiffs or activities and services bearing the impugned mark identical or deceptively similar to the Plaintiffs’ registered trademarks, as described in the suit, and amounting to infringement of Plaintiffs’trade markrights; b. A decree for ad interim injunction restraining the Defendants No.1-3, their affiliates, directors, members, be, from using Plaintiffs’ trademark “MICROSOFT”, “OUTLOOK”, “OFFICE365”, “ ” registered trademarks, as described in the suit, so as to take unfair advantage of and/or cause detriment to the distinctive character and reputation of the Plaintiffs’ trademark “MICROSOFT” ”and from doing any other thing as is likely to cause confusion or deception leading to passing off of the Defendants No. 1-3’ services / activities as those of the Plaintiffs; c. A decree for ad interim injunction restraining Defendants No. 1-3, their affiliates, directors, members, be, from using the Plaintiffs’trademark “MICROSOFT”, “OUTLOOK”, “OFFICE365”, “ ” registered trademarks, as described in the suit, so as to take unfair advantage of and/or cause detriment to the distinctive character and reputation of the Plaintiffs’ trademark “MICROSOFT” and from doing any other thing as is likely to cause confusion or deception leading to dilution or tarnishment as those of the Plaintiffs’ trademark; d. A decree for ad interim injunction restraining Defendants No. 1-3, their affiliates, directors, members, employees, contractors, officers, servants and agents and all other persons acting on their behalf as the case may be, from misrepresenting and impersonating as the Plaintiffs’and/or their authorized agents, technicians, affiliates, agents, employees, etc. in any manner, whatsoever; e. An order in the nature of directions to the Defendant No. 4 to 9 for placing a lock and suspension of the impugned domain names, arrayed in Paragraph 45 as Sl. No. 4, 8 to Defendant No.4 [Public Domain Registry], Sl. No. 1,2,3,[5] to Defendant No. 5 [Net Alliance PTY Limited], Sl.no. 6 to Defendant No. 6 [Instra Corporation], Sl. No. 7 and Sl. No.25 to Defendant No. 7 [Internet Domain Service BC Corp], Sl. No. 26 to Defendant No.8 [Shinjiru MSC SDN BHD] and Sl. No. 27 to Defendant No. 9 [NameCheap.Inc] in the Plaint, and to Defendant No. 10 to suspend the servers of <pcpatchers.com>, <supportaus.com>and <dnsserveruk.com> which are hosted on the same IP Address“15.236.214.87”. f. An order also in the nature of directions to the Defendant No. 4-9 to reveal the Registrant details, including payment details of purchase and sale details, along with complete Shopper ID information, of the impugned domain names, arrayed in Paragraph 45 at Sl. No. 4 and 8 to Defendant No. 4 [Public Domain Registry], Sl. No. 1,2,3,[5] to Defendant No. 5 [Net Alliance PTY Limited], Sl.no. 6 to Defendant No. 6 [Instra Corporation] and Sl. No. 7 and Sl. No.25 to Defendant No. 7[Internet Domain Service BC Corp], Sl. No. 25, 26 to Defendant No. 8[Shinjiru MSC SDN BHD] and Sl. NO. 27 to Defendant No.9 [Name Cheap. Inc] in the Plaint hereinabove and to Defendant No. 10 to reveal all the history details related to the hostingservices provided to the domains <pcpatchers.com>,<supportaus.com> and <dnsserveruk.com> which are hosted on the same IP Address “15.236.214.87”.g. Pass ex-parte ad-interim orders in terms of prayer (a)-(c) above, pending the hearing and disposal of the present application; And any further orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case”
10. This Court vide order dated 28th August, 2020, had passed an order of interim injunction restraining the concerned Defendants, who are Registrants of the infringing domain names from infringing the Plaintiff’s marks. In respect of the same, appropriate directions were passed against the DNRs who had registered the infringing domain names.
11. The present suit is part of a batch of matters relating to domain names being registered by unknown third parties infringing trademark rights of various brand owners and implementation of Court orders by different concerned entities including the Domain Name Registrars (hereinafter “the DNRs”). The lead matter in the said batch of matters is CS(Comm.) 135/2022 titled Dabur India Limited vs. Ashok Kumar, where the Court vide detailed judgement dated 24th December, 2025, after hearing the parties on various issues passed the following directions:
231. Under these circumstances, considering the above mentioned discussion the following directions are issued: (A) Directions to DNRs and Registry Operators
(i) The DNRs and Registry Operators shall, henceforth, not resort to masking of details of the registrants, administrative contact and technical contact on a default basis as an ‘opt-out’ system. At the time of registration of the domain names, a specific option shall be provided for the Registrant and it is only if the said Registrant chooses for privacy protection, that the said service shall be offered as a value added service upon payment of additional charges. The additional charges shall not be made a part of the default package for registration of domain names.
(ii) Whenever any entity or individual having legitimate interest, law enforcement agencies (LEAs) or the Courts, request for disclosure of data relating to any infringing or unlawful domain name, the following data shall be disclosed by the concerned DNR as soon as possible but not later than 72 hours in terms of the Intermediaries Guidelines 2021: (a) Name of the Registrant; (b) Administrative contact;
(c) Technical contact;
(d) Addresses of the above mentioned persons/entities;
(e) Mobile numbers of the above mentioned persons/entities; (f) Email address of the above mentioned persons/entities; (g) Any payment related information such as details of credit card, debit card, UPI number, payment platform identities, bank account details, etc., which may be available with the DNR; (h) Details of any value added services such as hosting of website, brokerage, or any other services offered by the DNR or by Registry concerned.
(iii) If any particular domain name is restrained by an order of injunction or has been found to be used for illegitimate and unlawful purposes, the said domain name shall remain permanently blocked and shall not be put in a common pool in order to disable re-registration of the same very domain name by other DNRs. The appropriate steps in this regard shall be taken by the concerned Registry Operator to ensure that all DNRs having an agreement uniformly give effect to the said direction.
(iv) In the case of trademarks/brands, which are well-known or are invented, arbitrary or fanciful marks, which have attained reputation/goodwill in India, if a Court of Law directs that there would be an injunction on making available the infringing domain name with different extensions or mirror/redirect/alphanumeric variations, the same shall be given effect to by the DNRs and no alternate domain name shall be made available in respect of such brands and marks.
(v) Upon an injunction being issued by the Court in respect of any domain name and the same being communicated to the DNRs, the DNRs shall ensure that no alternative domain name is promoted or being suggested to a prospective Registrant. Any promotion of alternative domain names of an injuncted domain name would disentitle the concerned DNR for safe harbour protection under Section 79 of the IT Act.
(vi) In respect of descriptive and generic marks, the restraining/injunction orders would be qua the specific domain name and any extension of restraining/injunction order for other infringing domain names would be with the intervention of the Joint Registrar before whom the application under Order I Rule 10 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 along with affidavit shall be filed and the injunction would be extended. Where any party is aggrieved by the order of the Joint Registrar, the application may be moved or placed before the ld. Single Judge.
(vii) Upon orders being passed by a Court, the infringing domain name shall be transferred to the Plaintiff/trademark owner/brand owner, upon payment of usual charges.
(viii) Search engines and DNRs shall not provide any promotion or marketing or optimization services to infringing and unlawful domain names.
(ix) All DNRs offering services in India shall appoint
(x) Service by email to the respective Grievance Officer’s details would be henceforth sufficient service for Court orders and any DNRs who insist upon services through MLAT or through other modes of services shall be held to be non-compliant DNRs.
(xi) In appropriate cases where an entity has repeatedly not complied with orders of the Court, and in the opinion of the Court it is a case where the interest of society at large is being adversely affected, such as cases of frauds, the Court may direct the appropriate authority to block access to the said entity under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 read with Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguard for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009.
(xii) All Registry Operators having valid agreements with
ICANN shall take appropriate steps to implement the Trademark Clearing House services and make the same available to all brand owners & registered proprietors of trade marks.
(xiii) All DNRs offering services in India or to customers in
India shall undertake verification of Registrant's details at the time of registration and periodic verification of the same. The verification shall be done in terms of KYC requirements mentioned in Circular No. 20(3)/2022- CERT-In dated 28th April, 2022 issued by Indian Computer Emergency Response Team. This is in line with the NIXI Accreditation Agreement.
(xiv) All DNRs who are enabling registration of domain names which are administered by NIXI as a Registry Operator shall comply and provide requisite registration data to NIXI within one month of this judgment and also update the same on a monthly basis. (B) Directions to the Government
(xv) The following directions are issued to MeitY, MHA and other relevant Government authorities: (a) The Government shall hold a stake holder consultation with all DNRs and Registry Operators offering services in India and explore the possibility of putting in place a framework similar to the one used by NIXI by all DNRs for the purpose of domain name registration. (b) Consider nomination of a nodal agency such as NIXI as the data repository agency for India with which all the Registry Operators and the DNRs would maintain details related to Registrants on a periodic basis so that the said details are made available to the Courts, LEAs and the governmental authorities for the purpose of enforcement of orders of Courts and for preventing misuse. Alternatively, DNRs shall be directed to localize the data in India for easy access. Irrespective of the decision, it is made clear that processing of personal information would be strictly in terms of the DPDP Act and applicable Rules.
(c) In case of a DNR or Registry Operator, which does not comply with the orders of the Courts or with request from LEAs, the offering of services of such DNRs or Registry Operator be blocked by MeitY and DoT under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 read with Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguard for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009.
(d) MeitY along with NIXI shall coordinate with ICANN to enable brand owners in India to avail of TMCH facilities on reasonable terms and conditions so that they can receive notifications whenever any conflicting /infringing domain names are proposed to be registered by any third parties across the globe.
(xvi) The CGPDTM could also consider publishing the list of well-known marks along with the official and authentic website details of the trademark owners so that if any consumer or user wishes to verify the authentic website, the same would be made possible through the website of the Intellectual Property Office. The same shall also act as sufficient notice to all potential Registrants as to the actual websites of the well-known marks/brands.
(C) Directions qua grant of ‘Dynamic +’ injunction
(xvii) The dynamic + injunction would apply under the following circumstances:
(i) Wherever the brand/trademark appears as it is in the domain name;
(ii) Wherever brand/trademark appears with a prefix or suffix which could lead to confusion;
(iii) Wherever the brand/trademark appears as an alphanumeric variation.
(xvii) Whenever there is a legitimate Registrant who opposes the suspension of the domain name, if the same is communicated by the said Registrant to the concerned DNR, the DNR may then ask the IP owner to obtain a Court order.
(D) Directions to Banks
(xviii) All banks shall mandatorily implement the ‘Beneficiary
Bank Account Name Lookup’ facility in terms of the RBI circular dated 30th December, 2024 for all online payments including payment by UPI through applications such as Google Pay, Paytm, etc.
(xix) All banks shall also abide by the Standard Operating
Procedures dated 31st May, 2024 issued by Central Economic Intelligence Bureau for processing and responding to requests received from LEAs.
12. Coming to the facts of the present case, the same reveals that the Plaintiffs claims rights in the mark ‘MICROSOFT’ which was adopted in the year 1975. It is also a distinct part of the Plaintiff’s corporate name. It has already been declared as a well-known trademark vide order dated 3rd February, 2014 in CS(OS) 2163/2010 titled Microsoft Corporation & Anr vs. Kurapati Venkata Jagdeesh Babu & Anr. Apart from the name ‘MICROSOFT’ and an accompanying logo the Plaintiff also owns the marks ‘HOTMAIL’ and ‘OUTLOOK’.
13. Hotmail was one of the initial email services that was launched by the Plaintiffs and Outlook is an email integration platform. Microsoft has a Digital Crimes Unit which tracks technology frauds and scams, and it was realized that certain domain names were registered by the Defendants, namely, Mr. Ravi Shekhar Singh and Mr. Deepak Pundir who were operating under the name P.C. Patchers Technology Pvt. Ltd.
14. It is stated that sometime in the year 2016 the Plaintiffs’ crime centre received complaints from various victims who were using the services provided by Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 who posed themselves to be Microsoft Certified Engineers and authorized tech support team. They used various call centres to involve themselves in cheating and impersonation. The Plaintiffs had filed a criminal complaint which was registered as an FIR being FIR NO. 122/2018, P.S. Special Cell, Cyber Crime, New Delhi dated 3rd October, 2018 and searches were conducted at nine different call centres. Several digital devices are stated to have been seized by the Police and a charge-sheet has also been filed. The Defendants were also operating under the name ‘MACGEEKS’ and various domain names with support services were registered. The fraudulent domain names which were used by these perpetrators are as under:
15. Despite the criminal complaint that was filed, the fraudulent acts continued especially during the COVID-19 pandemic. It is stated that the entity name which was being used as ‘MACPATCHERS’ started using several sub-domains as well consisting of the marks ‘OUTLOOK’ and ‘OFFICE 365’ which belong to the Plaintiffs. Some screenshots of the same are set out below:
16. The domain names and the websites complained of who were indulging in large scale impersonation are as under:
17. After having considered the pleadings, this Court vide order dated 12th November, 2020 granted an interim injunction in the following terms:
represented themselves as Microsoft Technical Support and claimed that they were looking at the customers‟ account and informing him that it had been breached/hacked. They then tried to charge £150 to clean up the accounts. On the customers asking as to how he can delete the infected account, they said that the charges would be £100. Thereafter the customer tried calling him several times and each time he cut the phone.
13. Similarly, one more complaint states that the customer was informed that his Outlook account had been hacked and they can attempt to recover the account. The customer called these people who said it would take 3-5 days to fix the same on payment of charges. Though it was a free phone UK number but the technician was Eastern and he also told the customer that the account had been hacked by a Russian syndicate. According to the customer he still has issues and wants his account back.
14. Similarly, number of other customers have stated that they were approached on the claim that their accounts have been hacked, that the defendant Nos.1, 2 and 3 or their agents could help them and after charging money, there was no response.
15. Along with the report of the Investigator, various documents have been filed including Annexure-A which show the infringement of the plaintiffs‟ trademarks on the homepage of the defendant No.1‟s website as under:
16. The Investigator has also placed on record the screenshot of the chats with the various customers wherein when the customers contact the defendant No.1, 2 and 3 or their syndicate, they affirm that they are from the MICROSOFT and their Senior Hotmail Certified Technician will contact the customer.
17. Considering the averments made in the plaint as also the documents filed therewith, there is sufficient material to show that besides cheating the customers, the defendant Nos.1, 2 and 3 are also infringing the plaintiffs‟ trademarks, domain names, copyright etc.
18. The plaintiffs have thus made out a prima facie case in their favour and in case no ex-parte ad-interim injunction is granted, the plaintiffs would suffer an irreparable loss. The balance of convenience also lies in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants.
19. Consequently, an ex-parte ad-interim injunction is granted in terms of prayer (a), (b), (c) and (d) of Para 14 of I.A.10520/2020.
20. Defendant Nos.[4] to 10 are directed to file the Basic Subscription Information of the registrants including payment details before this Court with advance copies to learned counsel for the plaintiffs.
21. Defendant Nos.[4] to 10 are also directed to suspend/lock the impugned domain names as noted in Para 45 of the plaint i.e.Serial No.4 and 8 by defendant No.4, Serial Nos.1, 2, 3, 5 by defendant No.5, Serial No.6 by defendant No.6, Serial Nos.[7] and 25 by defendant No.7, Serial No.26 by defendant No.8, and Serial No.27 by defendant No.9. Defendant No.10 is also directed to suspend <pcpatchers.com>, <supportaus.com> and <dnsserveruk.com>. On the plaintiffs furnishing necessary URLs to defendant Nos.[4] to 10 within 36 hours from the passing of this Order, the defendant Nos.[4] to 10 would comply the orders of this Court by taking out/suspending/blocking the offending domain names as mentioned in Para 45 of the plaint within 48 hours of the receiving of the URLs. ”
18. A written statement has been filed in the matter by Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 who were contesting the matter on merits. For some time, mediation was also explored and the matter was tagged with the batch matters involving various issues in respect of domain names.
19. The grievance of the Plaintiff is that the concerned DNRs have not suspended the domain names despite repeatedly being asked to do so. In the written statement, the stand taken is that one Mr. Calvin Hunters was responsible for day to day functioning of ‘Macgeeks’ and ‘livechatexpert.com.au’. Defendant No. 1 - PCPatchers Technology Private Limited claims to not have received any money from Mr. Calvin Hunters. In effect, the case of Defendant No.1 is that registering a domain name does not constitute trademark infringement which is contrary to the settled legal position.
20. After having perused the written statements of the Defendants, this Court is of the opinion that the matters deserves to be heard separately on merits. Since there is an injunction order already operating in this matter, the DNRs are directed to suspend the impugned domain names.
21. The said interim injunction order dated 12th November, 2020 shall continue till the decision in I.A. 10520/2020.
22. Further, it is noted that the DNRs were directed on 13th September, 2023 to give the details of the concerned Registrants. Vide order dated 13th September, 2023, it was directed as under:
23. It is the Plaintiffs’case that till date, the details have not been submitted. Accordingly, the said DNRs are directed to provide the details of the registrants within a period of two weeks, failing which, the MeitY and DoT shall now suspend the services of the concerned DNRs.
24. For the said purpose, list this matter before the Roster Bench on 28th January, 2026 for further proceedings in I.A. 10520/2020.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUDGE DECEMBER 24, 2025 dj/dk/kk/Rahul/msh/ck