The Delhi High Court’s ruling in the case of Adobe Inc. v. Namase Patel and Ors. serves as a reminder of the importance of protecting trademarks and intellectual property rights on the internet. In this case, the court granted a permanent injunction in favour of the Plaintiff. The Court recognised Namase Patel as a habitual cyber squatter and awarded a sum of INR 2,00,01,000/- (approx. US$ 242,000) in damages against the defendant to act as a deterrent against such actions in the future.

Cyber-squatting is the practice of registering well-known companies or brand names as internet domains with the intention of reselling them for a profit. In this case, Patel had registered the domain names and, & sub domains which were similar to Adobe’s registered trademarks “ADOBE”, “PHOTOSHOP”, and “SPARK”. The court held that the defendant’s use of these domain names constituted an infringement of Adobe’s trademark under the Indian Trademarks Act.

The court also took into account the fact that Patel was using a “catch-all” e-mail service, which allowed him to access any e-mails that may have misspelt the domain name This raised concerns about the potential for confidential information to be accessed by the defendant.

In light of these findings, the court passed a decree of permanent injunction against Patel, prohibiting him from using Adobe’s trademarks in his domain names and directing internet and telecom service providers to block access to his websites. The court also ordered the transfer of the domain names and to Adobe to prevent further misuse.

The Delhi High Court’s ruling serves as a warning to individuals and companies who engage in the practice of cyber-squatting. It is crucial for businesses to protect their intellectual property rights on the internet and take appropriate legal action against those who seek to infringe upon these rights. This case shows that the courts in India are willing to take a strong stance against cyber-squatting and will award significant damages against those who engage in this unlawful activity.

Adobe v. Namase Patel –