A serial cybersquatter registered addobe.com and adobee.com — and ran a “catch-all” email service to harvest mail meant for Adobe. The Delhi High Court hit back hard: a permanent injunction, ₹2 crore in damages, domain transfer, and website blocking.
The case
In Adobe Inc. v. Namase Patel & Ors, the Delhi High Court granted a permanent injunction to Adobe and, recognising Patel as a habitual cybersquatter, awarded INR 2,00,01,000 (≈ US$242,000) in damages — expressly as a deterrent.
Cybersquatting is registering well-known brand names as domains to resell for profit. Patel had registered addobe.com and adobee.com (and subdomains) — confusingly close to Adobe’s marks ADOBE, PHOTOSHOP and SPARK. The court held this infringed Adobe’s trademarks under the Trade Marks Act.
The catch-all email danger
The court also noted Patel used a “catch-all” email service — letting him receive any email sent to a misspelt adobe.com address. That raised serious concerns about confidential information landing in the squatter’s hands: a typo in an email address could route sensitive mail straight to him.
The relief
The court passed a decree of permanent injunction, barring Patel from using Adobe’s marks in domains, and:
- directed ISPs and telecom providers to block access to his websites; and
- ordered transfer of addobe.com and adobee.com to Adobe to prevent further misuse.
Why it matters
The ruling is a warning to cybersquatters and a reassurance to brand owners: Indian courts will take a strong stance and award significant damages. For businesses, it underscores the need to protect IP online and act firmly against typosquatting and catch-all email abuse.
The takeaways
- Typosquatting is infringement — addobe.com/adobee.com were confusingly similar to ADOBE.
- Habitual squatters face deterrent damages — ₹2 crore here.
- Catch-all email is a real threat — misaddressed mail can leak confidential data to the squatter.
- Courts order transfer and blocking — not just damages, but practical removal.
Frequently asked questions
What is typosquatting? Registering misspelt versions of a brand’s domain (like addobe.com for adobe.com) to exploit typing errors — a form of cybersquatting that can infringe trademarks.
How much did Adobe recover? The Delhi High Court awarded ₹2,00,01,000 (about US$242,000) in damages, plus a permanent injunction, domain transfer and website blocking.
Why is a catch-all email service a concern? It lets the squatter receive any email sent to a misspelt domain address, risking exposure of confidential information intended for the real brand.
What relief can a brand get against a cybersquatter? A permanent injunction, transfer of the infringing domains, ISP/telecom blocking of the sites, and significant damages, as Adobe obtained.
Legislation referred to
- The Trade Marks Act, 1999