AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Bank (M. 9818707178)
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)
This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
I.A. ….. /2025 in CS (Comm) 350/2020 (To be numbered)
At the outset, Mr. Ramesh Babu, ld. Counsel appearing for the Reserve Bank of India has mentioned and handed over an application seeking clarification of the order dated 7th February, 2025 passed in the present batch of matters.
It is submitted that there are two inadvertent errors in paragraphs 4 and 7 of the order dated 7th February, 2025. The prayer in the present application is extracted hereunder:
“1.Correct/ Clarify Para No.4 of the Order dated 07.02.2025 to be read as “a similar facility in respect of RTGS and NEFT is under testing”; and
2.Correct/clarify Para No. 7 of the Order dated 07.02.2025 to be read as “the beneficiary name lookup facility is to be made available for RTGS, NEFT through internet banking and mobile banking, and also for the remitters visiting branches for making transactions”; and/or
3.Pass any other order as this court may deem fit in the interest of justice.”
The Court has perused the present application and for the reasons stated therein, the same is allowed. Accordingly, the corrected paragraphs 4 and 7 of the order dated 7th February, 2025 shall read as under:
“4.The Court was further apprised by Ms. Bharti, ld. Counsel, that as per the press release dated 9th October, 2024, insofar as UPI and IMPS is concerned, the remitter can verify name of the receiver before initiation of the payment transaction. It was submitted by the ld. Counsel that a similar facility in respect of RTGS and NEFT was under testing and would be made available to the banks soon along with the relevant guidelines for the same. Accordingly, the Court after considering the above submissions directed the RBI to expeditiously activate the said Beneficiary Name Lookup Facility. The relevant portion of the order dated 21st December, 2024 reads as under: [...]
XXX XXX XXX
7.According to the RBI’s circular reproduced above, the said beneficiary name lookup facility is to be made available for RTGS, NEFT, through internet banking and mobile banking, and also for the remitters visiting branches for making transactions. It is also stated therein that the same is to be fully implemented by 1st April, 2025.”
The present application be taken on record and be numbered by the Registry.
Application is disposed of in above terms.
Beneficiary Name Lookup Facility
On 7th February, 2025, the Court had passed certain directions qua National Payments Corporation of India (hereinafter “NCPI”) after considering the circular dated 30th December, 2024 titled “Introduction of beneficiary bank account name look-up facility for Real Time Gross Settlement (RTGS) and National Electronic Funds Transfer (NEFT) Systems” issued by the Reserve Bank of India.
Pursuant to the said directions, the concerned officials of NPCI being Mr. Ajay Shyam Pal, In-Charge Products and Mr. Nitesh S.K., Lead Product Development, were present in Court on 15th February, 2025. An affidavit dated 14th February, 2025 was also filed by NPCI in terms of the directions passed on 7th February, 2025. The Court perused the same and after considering the submission of Mr. Pushkar, ld. Counsel for NPCI, following directions were passed:
“22.It is noted that one of the important features of this affidavit is Annexure 1 which contains the indicative reference list of key words not to be allowed to individuals. The said list also contains names/marks of well known brands or companies which cannot be permitted to be registered as IDs of account holders without the permission of the said entity/brand holder. Further, the said list also includes various websites and well-known marks, organizational names, Government bodies, corporate designations which are not to be registered.
23.It is submitted by ld. Counsel for NPCI that the said list is only an indicative list prepared by NPCI for the information of the banks and the same is not a definitive list. It is also submitted that the directions to the respective bank would have to be issued by the Court for refraining from registering a particular string of words. The NPCI does not have the power to implement the same.
24.Considering the said submissions, let the ld. Counsel for the NPCI take instructions as to whether upon a Court being satisfied that a brand or a mark has acquired a status which is well known and there ought to be an order directing that no individuals should be allowed to register bank accounts or UPI Ids or VPAs with the said brand names, an advisory can be issued by the NPCI to all banks in this regard, which would thereafter have to be implemented by the banks themselves.”
Today, Mr. Pushkar, ld. Counsel submits that he has taken appropriate instructions on the specific query of the Court on the last date of hearing. It is submitted that it would not be possible for the NPCI to issue an advisory to the banks in terms of an order of the Court directing that no individuals should be allowed to register bank accounts or UPI IDs or VPAs with certain brand names. It is further submitted that the creation of UPI IDs or the VPAs is the responsibility of the respective banks and not of NPCI, accordingly, it is up to the banks, who permit registration of the IDs, to ensure that there is no violation or use of key words which are impermissible.
Considering the above, let the Indian Banks Association (hereinafter “IBA”) file an affidavit addressing the above, including the issue as to what measures can be taken by the IBA to ensure compliance by all banks of any order which may be passed by the Court directing that no individuals should be allowed to register bank accounts or UPI IDs or VPAs with the certain brand names.
Let the said affidavit be filed by the next date of hearing.
Adjournment is sought on behalf of ld. Counsel for IBA - Mr. Rajesh Kumar Gautam. Ld. Counsel is directed to remain physically present in Court on the next date to assist the Court in the present matter.
Directions qua the Registries
On 7th February, 2025, after considering submissions of the parties in respect of powers of the Domain Name Registrars vis-à-vis the Registries to block and lock a particular word string from being registered as domain names, the Court issued notice to two Registries i.e., Registry Services LLC and Verisign, Inc.
Both the said Registries have entered appearance before the Court on 15th February, 2025, and after hearing the parties the Court had directed as under:
“13.Pursuant to the order dated 7th February, 2025, notice was issued to the two Registries i.e., Registry Services LLC and Verisign, Inc., both the said parties have entered appearance before the Court. Mr. Chander Lall, ld. Sr. counsel appearing for Verisign, Inc. submits that he would like to file an affidavit explaining the role of Verisign, Inc. and also the steps that can be undertaken by Verisign, Inc. if directions are given by the Court.
14.Specifically, both these parties i.e., Registry Services LLC and Verisign, Inc., shall file their affidavits in respect of the following aspects:
i.The domain name extensions that the said Registries manage and supervise;
ii.Whether in respect of the said domain name extensions, orders for suspension, locking, blocking and transfer of the domain names can be implemented by them in respect of existing infringing domain names;
iii.Whether the said Registries can also implement orders injuncting registration of infringing domain names in the future which contain the brands/trademarks as may be directed by the Court in the form of a TLD/word string.
15.In addition, National Internet Exchange of India (hereinafter “NIXI”) shall also file an affidavit in respect of the above directions.
16.At the moment, the said two registries are not being impleaded in any suit of the present batch matters. Upon consideration of the affidavits which they file, the Court shall pass further orders in this regard.”
Today, submissions have been made by Mr. Chander M. Lall, ld. Senior Counsel on behalf of Verisign Inc., by Ms. Swathi Sukumar, ld. Senior Counsel on behalf of Registry Services LLC, by Mr. Darpan Wadhwa, ld. Senior Counsel on behalf of GoDaddy.com LLC and Ms. Kruttika Vijay, ld. Counsel on behalf of Hosting Concepts B.V..
Mr. Chander M. Lall & Ms. Swathi Sukumar, ld. Sr. Counsels have handed over their affidavits to show as to what are the steps that the respective Registries can take or cannot take in terms of the queries which were put by the Court on 15th February, 2025.
Mr. Darpan Wadhwa, ld. Sr. Counsel has handed over notes on behalf of GoDaddy.com LLC and Newfold Digital Inc. addressing the queries put forth by the Court on 7th February, 2025. Ms. Kruttika Vijay, ld. Counsel has also handed over a note on behalf of Hosting Concepts B.V. in terms of the order dated 7th February, 2025.
The Court has perused the said affidavits and notes handed over by the parties.
Ms. Kruttika Vijay, ld. Counsel has drawn attention of the Court to the note dated 5th April, 2025 handed over today on behalf of Hosting Concepts B.V., wherein examples of certain services which Hosting Concepts B.V. has signed onto as an accredited Domain Name Registrar, including the Trademark Clearinghouse (hereinafter “TMCH”) have been mentioned. It is stated that TMCH is a global repository of validated and registered trademarks established by Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (hereinafter “ICANN”) to verify trademark data from multiple global regions and maintain a database with verified trademark records. The relevant paragraph of the said note is extracted hereunder:
“12.Some Registries provide services to brand owners through accredited DNRs to help protect the rights of brand owners on the Internet. Examples of services which Hosting Concepts has signed onto as an accredited DNR include:
a. Trademark Clearinghouse (TCMH): TCMH is a global repository of validated and registered trademarks established by ICANN to (i) verify trademark data from multiple global regions; and (ii) maintain a database with the verified trademark records. Currently, ICANN has only authorized Deloitte to provide trademark verification services for TCMH. The advantage of TCMH include:
i.Brand owners whose trademark rights are verified by TCMH are provided with a Signed Mark Data (SMD) file, which is recognized by several registries as proof of minimum eligibility requirements.
ii.New gTLD registries utilizing TCMH are required to offer a sunrise period for registration of domain names to brand owners at least 30 days prior to public access.
iii.On new gTLD registries utilizing TCMH, for a 90-day period after launch, registrants attempting to register a second-level domain name will receive a warning if the name matches an entry in the TCMH. If the registrant registers the name anyway, the rights owner will receive a notification from the Trademark Claims system.
iv.Rights holders with trademarks registered in the TCMH can opt in to receive additional notifications of exact matches to names they have registered in the TCMH.”
It is further submitted by Ms. Kruttika Vijay, ld. Counsel, in respect of the privacy issues, that all accredited DNRs with ICANN are mandated to comply with the provisions of the General Data Protection Regulation passed by the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union (hereinafter “GDPR”).
Mr. Raj Shekhar Rao, ld. Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of ICANN submits that insofar as the TMCH and privacy issues in the context of GDPR are concerned, ICANN has already addressed the same in its responses to the questionnaires provided by the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology and the same are annexed with the written submissions filed by ICANN in CS(Comm) 228/2021 titled Bajaj Finance Limited vs. Registrant of www.bajaj-finserve.org and others.
Directions in the suits
Ld. Counsel for the Plaintiffs shall place one comprehensive compilation on record giving the following details:
a list of all the domain names in each of the suits against which injunctions are being sought;
a table reflecting as to who are the Registrars and the Registries of the respective domain names against which injunctions have been sought in each suit.
In addition, the Plaintiffs shall also place on record, the list of all the pending I.A.s in each of the suits with the reliefs sought in the said applications.
The Plaintiffs have collectively suggested ld. Counsels Mr. Prajjwal Kushwaha (Mob. 7791065506) and Mr. Achyut Tewari (Mob. 8604633867) to act as nodal counsels for placing on record the above compilation along with the list of pending IAs.
Let the same be filed by the next date of hearing and a physical copy of the same be handed over to the Court Master one day before the next date.
List on 27th May, 2025.