When hundreds of look-alike domains use your brand, must you sue over each one — or can you make the registrars help? The Delhi High Court’s answer in Snapdeal v. GoDaddy: registrars must build the tools to help, even if no blanket injunction issues.
The dispute
Snapdeal sued 32 Domain Name Registrars (DNRs), including GoDaddy, for allowing registration of domains using variants of “SNAPDEAL.” Snapdeal argued the registrars were active facilitators, not passive intermediaries.
Snapdeal’s case:
- Infringement under Sections 28(1) and 29(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 — registrars profit from infringing marks and should not get Section 79 safe harbour under the IT Act.
- Unfair practices — knowingly profiting while diluting marks, and offering privacy services that conceal registrant identities.
- Impracticality — approaching the court for each of hundreds of infringing domains is unworkable.
The registrars’ defence:
- Domains are created by the Registry, not the registrar; registrars cannot control creation.
- Section 79 safe harbour applies; mere registration is not infringement — liability needs active use.
What the court ordered
The court balanced both sides rather than issuing a blanket injunction:
- Grievance mechanism. DNRs must implement a system letting trademark owners raise concerns directly about specific domains, with an Ombudsman to facilitate cancellation or transfer.
- Abuse policy. Clear policies to cancel/transfer infringing domains; owners keep judicial remedies if the policies fall short.
- Transparency. Privacy features must be disabled and the WHOIS database must show registrant details.
- No safe harbour for profiteering. Registrars profiting from alternative infringing domains cannot claim Section 79 protection.
Crucially, no blanket injunction was granted — individual actions for each domain remain necessary.
What it means
- Registrars face more accountability — grievance and abuse mechanisms, plus WHOIS transparency, are now expected.
- Safe harbour is conditional. Profiting from infringement forfeits it — echoing the platform-liability logic of the Amazon ₹339 crore ruling.
- But brand owners still do the legwork. Without blanket injunctions, enforcement remains domain-by-domain, aided by the new mechanisms.
Frequently asked questions
Are domain registrars liable for trademark-infringing domains in India? Not automatically, but they must provide grievance and abuse mechanisms and WHOIS transparency — and cannot claim safe harbour where they profit from infringing domains.
Did Snapdeal get a blanket injunction? No. The court declined blanket relief; individual actions for each infringing domain remain necessary, supported by the new registrar mechanisms.
Do registrars have to reveal who owns a domain? Yes — the court directed that privacy features be disabled and registrant details shown in WHOIS.
When do registrars lose safe harbour? When they actively profit from infringing (alternative) domains rather than acting as passive intermediaries.
Legislation referred to
- The Trade Marks Act, 1999
- Information Technology Act, 2000