MeiTY says to Delhi High Court: ‘Repeated’ Non-compliance of Court Orders by Domain Name Registrars can be Construed as Violation of Public Order

MeiTY says to Delhi High Court: ‘Repeated’ Non-compliance of Court Orders by Domain Name Registrars can be Construed as Violation of Public Order

The Delhi High Court was hearing the batch of petitions filed in matters relating to domain names being registered by unknown third parties infringing trademark right of various brand owners and implementation of court orders by the Domain Name Registrars (‘DNR’).

The Single judge Justice Pratibha M Singh noted that the Ministry had followed up with Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) regarding the issue of infringement of domain name and non-compliance of Court orders by DNRs.

The Union Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeiTY) has contended before the High Court that repeated non-compliance of judicial orders by any domain name registrars (DNR) can be construed as violation of public order and its website or URL can be blocked by the court under section 69A of the Information Technology Act.

From time to time, various directions have been passed by the Court in respect of blocking and locking of the infringing domain names, and implementation of court orders by various DNRs, which may or may not be located in India.

MeiTY through its status report has submitted that though the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, provide a grievance redressal mechanism by the intermediary, they do not provide any specific penalty for infringement or violation of the provisions or any other matter pertaining to the computer resources made available by the intermediary.

According to the status report, “That under the afore-said IT Rules, 2021, the intermediaries are required to take stringent steps in order to avail of the safe harbor clause under section 79 of the IT Act, 2000. That in case any DNRs do not comply with the competent court's orders, the safe harbor clause provided to such DNRs under section 79 of the IT Act will not be applicable. That, however, the IT Rules 2021 does not prescribe any penalty /fine for infringing the provisions.”

The status report states that India’s representative to the Government Advisory Committee of ICANN in a meeting held last month discussed the issue of domain name abuse and the lack of stringent verification process.

The Report further stated, that the answering Respondent will continue to deliberate and take up the issues highlighted above on the ICANN and other similar internet governance forums in the future.

The Court noted that “the issues raised by MeitY in its status report as also the issues being considered by this Court on behalf of several IP owners and DNRs, raise various questions in respect of how to give effect to orders passed by Indian Court, especially by DNRs, who specifically take a stand that they would only be bound by orders passed by the competent Courts within their own jurisdiction.”

The Court while considering the stand of MeitY and the provisions of the applicable laws, directed the counsels to make their submissions on the next date of hearing as to the manner in which final orders can be passed in these suits so as to ensure that the orders of injunction, which are passed in respect of infringing domain names are given effect to by DNRs and all other authorities, in a manner so as to ensure that more and more consumers are not misled.

In February, the Court had directed MeiTY and Department of Telecommunications to take action in accordance with Information Technology Rules, 2021 against DNRs who are not complying with the Rules.

It had observed that stringent steps are required to be taken in order to “curb the menace of illegal domain name registrations” having marks and names of well-known business houses.

The Court had particularly urged that action must be taken against DNRs which had failed to appoint grievance officers or have failed to implement orders given by courts and authorities in India.

The Court accordingly, listed the matter for hearing on 26th May.