Dabur India Limited vs Ashok Kumar & Ors.

Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)

This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

These are part heard matters. The present batch of matters relate to domain names being registered by unknown third parties infringing trade mark rights of various brand owners and implementation of Court orders by the Domain Name Registrars ('DNR's). In response to the challenges arising out of unauthorised registrations, from time to time, various directions have been passed by this Court in respect of blocking, locking and suspending of the infringing domain names, and implementation of Court orders by various DNRs which may or may not be located in India.

Mr. Gupta, ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of three banks i.e., HDFC Bank, Kotak Mahindra Bank, and CTBC Bank Co. Ltd. submits that, insofar as his clients are concerned, the Central Economic Intelligence Bureau (hereinafter, ‘CEIB’) has circulated an Office Memorandum which requires the banks to adhere to updated Standard Operating Procedure (hereinafter, ‘SoP’), whenever information is requested by the Law Enforcement Agencies (LEAs). It is his submission that the said SoP was circulated on 31st May, 2024 by the Government of India, but the SoP has not yet been fully implemented by the banks.

Ld. Counsel for the RBI refutes this position and submits that in the affidavit dated 2nd July, 2024 it was clearly mentioned that all banks have to adhere to the SoP, which has been circulated. She refers to paragraph 6 of the said affidavit to argue that Indian Bank Association (hereinafter, ‘IBA’) had to take up the matter with CEIB for amending the SoP, as per the email dated 10th January, 2024.

The above discussion would show that insofar as the said SoP for sharing information with LEAs is concerned, the IBA has to ensure the implementation of the same by the banks, which has not yet been done.

The banks contend today that the SoP is still not a binding document. Mr. Gupta, at this stage, submits that he would then have to seek instructions in the matter and apprise the Court as to whether the said SoP has actually been followed or not.

Accordingly, issue court notice to Mr. Rajesh Kumar Gautam, ld. Counsel for Indian Bank Association (IBA) (M: 9811252434, email [email protected]) in this matter for seeking instructions. Let an affidavit be filed on behalf of the IBA as to whether it has advised all the banks to ensure that the SoP is fully and strictly adhered to and also whether the same was circulated to all the banks or not.

In addition, Mr. Gupta ld. Counsel shall also take instructions from the banks he is representing about the implementation of the SoP.

Both ld. Counsel for IBA and Mr. Gupta shall also seek instructions and file an affidavit on how much period is taken for freezing bank accounts after a Law Enforcement agency request and/or order of the Court is furnished to the banks.

Insofar as the Reserve Bank of India ('RBI') is concerned, it is submitted by Ms. Jagriti, ld. Counsel appearing for Mr. Ramesh Babu, that an affidavit was filed by the RBI and was considered by the Court on 2nd July, 2024. The affidavit had clearly stated that the Beneficiary Name Lookup Facility would be implemented by the end of December, 2024. Paragraph 5 of the said affidavit reads as under:

In respect of the above, ld. Counsel for RBI has handed across a press release dated 9th October, 2024, as per which she submits that insofar as UPI and IMPS is concerned, remitter can verify the name of the receiver before initiation of payment transaction.

However, the said system for verification of name of the receiver is yet to be implemented in RTGS and NEFT payment methods. She further submits that the said system for NEFT and RTGS payment methods has been developed and is under testing. The system’s name is Beneficiary’s Name Lookup Facility. The said facility is now going to be made available to the member banks and the guidelines would be issued shortly.

Steps being taken by the RBI to for implementation of the said Beneficiary’s Name Lookup Facility for RTGS and NEFT transactions are extremely crucial to prevent cyber fraud like the kind of fraudulent activity that are being dealt in this case. The RBI shall , without any delay, create the said facility referred to as, Beneficiary’s Name Lookup Facility in terms of its affidavit and the press release dated 9th October, 2024 as also in terms of various previous orders of this Court. Delay in the implementation is likely to impact thousands of innocent consumers, who make payments without realising who is the beneficiary.

Let the RBI expeditiously activate the said system of Beneficiary’s Name Lookup Facility and inform the IBA and its member banks of the said facility, which could be implemented by the Banks.

Arguments by Mr. Anirudh Bhakru and Mr. Abhishek Singh, ld. Counsels have concluded.

Mr. Pravin Anand, ld. Counsel has placed a compilation before the Court and has highlighted services, which are being operated by GoDaddy LLC on GlobalBlock and GlobalBlock+ wherein, according to ld. Counsel, GoDaddy is choosing to charge substantial sums for more than Rs.2.7 lakhs for providing the services.

According to Mr. Anand, the services are being given by GoDaddy for protection of brands including for those which provide deceptively similar brands, homoglyph, variations and domain names with typographical errors of brands.

He further submits that this service, which is being offered, clearly shows that GoDaddy has the wherewithal to implement the orders passed by the Court, which it is failing to do as a DNR.

In addition, reliance is also placed upon the stand of Verisign Inc. in another matter – CS(Comm) 197/2024 where Verisign Inc., as a Registry, has taken the position that the issues relating to blocking of domain names are purely in the domain of the DNR itself and not the Registry. A set of documents, in this regard has been handed over to ld. Counsel for GoDaddy.

On these two aspects i.e., with respect to GlobalBlock and GlobalBlock+ services as also with regard to the difference between DNR and Domain Registry, GoDaddy shall file an affidavit at least two weeks before the next date of hearing.

List the batch of matters for hearing on 7th February, 2025.

Insofar as the specific matters and the applications pending therein are concerned, the same are listed as per the following table: