Case Title: Bima Sugam India Federation Vs. A. Range Gowda & Ors.
Date of Decision: 16 October 2025
Case Number: CS(COMM) 577/2025
Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:____
Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
Hon’ble Judge: Ms. Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
Facts
The plaintiff, Bima Sugam India Federation, is a not-for-profit company incorporated under Section 8 of the Companies Act, 2013. It was established under the aegis of the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India (IRDAI) in accordance with the IRDAI (Bima Sugam - Insurance Electronic Marketplace) Regulations, 2024. The purpose of the plaintiff is to operate and maintain the BIMA SUGAM electronic marketplace, a unified digital platform envisioned to offer policyholders a single-window access to insurance services such as policy purchase, claim settlement, and grievance redressal. The project forms part of IRDAI’s vision of “Insurance for All by 2047.”
Following public announcements by the IRDAI Chairman in August 2022 about the upcoming BIMA SUGAM marketplace, the concept received widespread media coverage. The plaintiff’s mark “BIMA SUGAM” became known across India as an official regulatory initiative even before the platform’s formal launch.
Defendant No. 1, A. Range Gowda, an insurance agent based in Karnataka, registered two domain names — www.bimasugam.com and www.bimasugam.in — in October 2022, just weeks after IRDAI’s announcement. He also created social media handles using the same name and later filed trademark applications for BIMA SUGAM in multiple classes. The plaintiff alleged that Defendant No. 1 had acted in bad faith, engaged in cybersquatting, and sought to exploit the regulatory goodwill associated with BIMA SUGAM. Defendant No. 1 demanded ₹50 crores from the plaintiff to transfer the domains.
The plaintiff sought an interim injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC to restrain the defendant from using the mark and to direct the domain registrar (Defendant No. 2) to transfer ownership of the disputed domains to the plaintiff.
---
Procedural Details
The High Court initially granted an ad-interim injunction on 29 May 2025 restraining Defendant No. 1 from using the mark BIMA SUGAM or any deceptively similar variant. The court also directed the registrar (Defendant No. 2) to lock and suspend the disputed domains.
Subsequently, the present order dated 16 October 2025 adjudicated the plaintiff’s prayer for transfer of the domain names to its ownership. Defendant No. 1 opposed the application, contending that the plaintiff’s suit was delayed and that he was the prior and bona fide adopter of the term BIMA SUGAM, being descriptive of insurance-related services.
---
Dispute
The core legal questions before the Court were:
1. Who was the prior user of the mark BIMA SUGAM?
2. Whether Defendant No. 1’s adoption of the mark in October 2022 was honest or in bad faith.
3. Whether the defendant’s demand of ₹50 crores for transfer of the domain was justified or showed malice.
4. Whether an interim mandatory injunction could be granted directing transfer of the domains to the plaintiff.
---
Judicial Reasoning
The Court began by examining the evidence of prior use. It noted that IRDAI had officially announced the BIMA SUGAM project on 25 and 30 August 2022 through major media coverage, followed by inclusion of the project in IRDAI’s Annual Reports for 2022–23 and 2023–24. The Bima Sugam Regulations, 2024 further formalized the project, explicitly describing the “BIMA SUGAM – Insurance Electronic Marketplace” as a “Digital Public Infrastructure.”
The Court held that publicity, pre-launch preparation, and media promotion constitute “use” of a trademark under Section 2(2)(c)(i) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. It relied upon key precedents such as:
N.R. Dongre v. Whirlpool Corporation, 1995 SCC OnLine Del 310 — holding that advertisement and media awareness amount to use of a trademark.
Radico Khaitan v. Devans Modern Breweries Ltd., 2019 SCC OnLine Del 7483 — establishing that pre-launch preparatory acts constitute use.
Burger King Corp. v. Techchand Shewakramani, 2018 SCC OnLine Del 10881 — clarifying that use “in relation to” goods includes advertising and publicity.
Thus, the Court held that the BIMA SUGAM mark had entered public knowledge through IRDAI’s initiative before Defendant No. 1’s claimed adoption on 1 October 2022. Consequently, the plaintiff was the prior user.
Turning to the defendant’s conduct, the Court observed that Defendant No. 1 had filed multiple trademark applications in June 2024 in various classes — including for clothing and business management — which had no logical connection with his actual insurance work. His user affidavits falsely claimed sale of products and business activities that never existed. The Court held that such false statements demonstrated lack of bona fides.
Furthermore, Defendant No. 1’s demand of ₹50 crores for transfer of domains, despite incurring only ₹5,000 in registration cost, revealed opportunistic intent. His income tax returns showed modest earnings of ₹6–8 lakhs per annum, disproving his claim of potential loss worth ₹50 crores. The Court found this behavior consistent with “cybersquatting,” where a party registers a domain name similar to another’s mark to extract profit.
In assessing bad faith, the Court referred to Acqua Minerals Ltd. v. Pramod Borse, 2001 SCC OnLine Del 444, which set out criteria for bad-faith registration, such as registering domains primarily to sell or block the rightful owner’s access. It held that Defendant No. 1’s conduct squarely met these tests.
On Defendant No. 1’s argument that the relief sought amounted to granting the final relief at an interim stage, the Court cited Pfizer Products Inc. v. Altamash Khan, 2005 SCC OnLine Del 1388, and Eicher Ltd. v. Web Link India, 2002 SCC OnLine Del 714, holding that courts can direct domain transfers at interim stages when the balance of convenience favors the plaintiff. The Court also drew support from Tata Sky Ltd. v. Sachin Cody, 2011 SCC OnLine Bom 2126, where transfer of domain names was similarly ordered.
Finally, the Court recognized that BIMA SUGAM is not a private commercial mark but part of a public regulatory initiative intended to serve the policyholders and insurance stakeholders at large. The defendant’s obstruction delayed a project of national public importance. Therefore, the balance of convenience and public interest clearly lay in favor of the plaintiff.
---
Decision
The Delhi High Court held that Bima Sugam India Federation was the prior user of the mark BIMA SUGAM and that Defendant No. 1’s adoption was dishonest and in bad faith. The defendant’s demand for ₹50 crores was declared unreasonable and exploitative.
Accordingly, the Court directed Defendant No. 2, the domain registrar, to transfer ownership of www.bimasugam.com and www.bimasugam.in to the plaintiff within two weeks upon payment of transfer costs. The Court further stipulated that if the final trial resulted in favor of the defendant, the domains would be re-transferred to him and appropriate compensation paid by the plaintiff.
The Court rejected Defendant No. 1’s objections on delay and jurisdiction, emphasizing that no prejudice was caused and that the defendant’s websites targeted consumers nationwide, including Delhi. The Court thus upheld the earlier injunction and allowed the transfer of domain names to the plaintiff.
---
Conclusion
The judgment reaffirms the protection of statutory and public-interest trademarks, even before formal registration, when substantial goodwill arises from publicity, regulatory endorsement, and public association. It also strengthens Indian jurisprudence against cybersquatting and dishonest domain registration. The Court’s decision underscores that intellectual property rights can coexist with public welfare objectives, ensuring that digital public infrastructures like BIMA SUGAM remain untainted by private profiteering.
---
Suggested Titles for Publication:
1. “Cybersquatting and Public Interest: The Delhi High Court’s Landmark Ruling in Bima Sugam India v. A. Range Gowda”
2. “When Public Good Meets Private Gain: Judicial Protection of the BIMA SUGAM Initiative”
3. “Honest Adoption vs. Bad Faith: Understanding the Delhi High Court’s Approach to Domain Name Disputes”
4. “Trademark Rights in Public Digital Infrastructure: The Legal Lessons from Bima Sugam”
5. “Cybersquatting Under Judicial Scrutiny: The Rise of Public Interest Trademark Jurisprudence in India”
---
Disclaimer:
The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.
Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi
No comments:
Post a Comment