Dabur India Limited vs Ashok Kumar & Ors.

This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. Pursuant to the previous orders, various stakeholders have made submissions regarding the status of these matters. The same are dealt with hereinafter.

Vide previous orders, the DoT/MEITY had been directed to file its recommendations with respect to various issues that had arisen in these matters.

However, the recommendations have not been submitted. Today, Mr. Shankar, ld. CGSC, submits that a new coordinating officer - Mr. Deepak Goyal is in-charge of these cases and is coordinating with the various agencies for giving recommendations on behalf of the Government. MEITY is also yet to hold meetings with the CGPTDM to obtain its views before finalizing the recommendations.

This Court notes that vide previous order date 3rd August, 2022, recommendations were to be given by DoT/MEITY after consulting various stakeholders, on the following aspects:

In addition, a further aspect to be considered by the MEITY and DoT as recorded in the order dated 14th September, 2022, is the issue of whether grievance officers had been appointed by the DNRs listed therein and in case of no information regarding the same, MEITY was to take steps in accordance with law. A status report detailing the steps taken was also to be filed.

Further as recorded in the previous order dated 14th September, 2022, it was pointed out by various Plaintiffs that the bank account names and the names of the bank accounts holders do not correspond, which leads to gullible consumers being misled thinking that the name of the bank account is in fact the name of the person who has opened the same, when it may actually not be the case. This issue ought to be considered by the RBI so that guidelines can be issued. Accordingly, issue notice to the Standing/Nominated counsel of RBI - Mr. Ramesh Babu MR, Standing Counsel (M-9873922734)

It is reiterated that all the above aspects shall be considered by the DoT/MEITY as also the RBI and recommendations and status report shall be placed before the Court considering these aspects, positively within four weeks. It is made clear that if no recommendation is placed on record, the Court would be constrained to hold the concerned officials responsible.

Insofar as the criminal investigations are concerned, Ms. Sethi, ld. Standing Counsel, has placed on record status reports pertaining to around 25 matters. She submits that in 6 cases chargesheets have been filed and in a few cases, arrests have also been made. She however submits that in some cases, the actual individual victims were not found in Delhi, therefore the Delhi Police has not proceeded further yet.

It is clarified that if the brand owners of the registered marks are located in Delhi or if any transactions have taken place in Delhi, the Cyber Cell, Delhi Police, may register the FIR and conduct the investigation accordingly.

Let a consolidated status report in respect of all the matters be filed by Ms. Sethi, within four weeks.

It is noticed that in a large number of these matters, the banks are not placing the bank statements of the accounts complained against before this Court. Even the details of the persons who have opened the bank accounts such as the KYC details, etc. have not been placed.

In this view of the matter, each of the Plaintiffs’ counsel in all these suits is permitted to approach the respective banks for KYC details as also bank account statements and serve a copy of today’s order to the banks. In the communication to be given by ld. Counsel for the Plaintiffs to the banks the details of the bank accounts and any other details which may be available with the Plaintiffs’ counsel shall also be given to the respective banks.

Upon being served, the respective banks shall file the relevant details including the bank statement of all the periods during which the bank account has remained open, as also the KYC details of the persons who have opened the bank accounts.

Any non-compliance of this direction shall lead to an adverse inference against the concerned bank(s) and the concerned Branch managers shall be held personally responsible.

In this regard, it has also been noticed that the Reserve Bank of India, impleaded as Defendant No.38 in CS(COMM) 350/2022, has not entered appearance today. Let fresh notice be issued to the nominated counsel for the Reserve Bank of India for appearance in this matter.

Ld. counsel for the Plaintiffs to serve a copy of this order to the nominated counsel for RBI as well.

Registry to also give intimation to the nominated counsel of RBI and attach with the same, the order of this Court dated 14th September, 2022. The RBI shall also place its stand on record on the aspect of discrepancies between account holders’ name and the name of the account itself and recommendations as to the way forward.

In CS(COMM) 324/2020, ld. counsel for the Plaintiff submits that a domain name mcdfranchise.in has been noticed to be an unauthorized domain, and GoDaddy LLC (hereinafter “GoDaddy”) has been informed of the same by affidavit, as per orders dated 17th August, 2020 and 17th September, 2020. However, the said domain name has not been locked/suspended.

The Court has perused the printout of the impugned website. The said website clearly uses both McDonalds’ name and the golden arch logo. It is accordingly directed that the said domain name shall be locked/suspended by GoDaddy, within 48 hours. Status quo shall be maintained as to ownership. All details relating to this domain name including the credit card details, registrant details, etc., shall be supplied to ld. Counsel for the Plaintiff within one week. Blocking orders shall also be issued by DoT/MEITY qua mcdfranchise.in.

Ld. Counsel for the Plaintiff in CS(COMM) 154/2021, also submits that GoDaddy has not complied with the orders in the said case. Ld. Counsel for GoDaddy disputes this. Go Daddy to file its affidavit in this regard, within two weeks.

Ms. Sethi, ld. Standing Counsel, also submits that GoDaddy has not been responding to various requests for details by the police in its investigations.

In order for effective communication, it is directed that in future, any emails and information which is sought shall be sent by email to the grievance officer as also to ld. Counsels for GoDaddy who are present in Court and whose emails address be provided to Ms. Sethi. The said details are as under:

List on 10th February, 2023 at 3:30 p.m.

These are part-heard matters.