Bima Sugam India Federation Vs. A. Range Gowda

Trademark Use Through Publicity

Facts of the Case:  The case revolves around the ownership and use of the term “BIMA SUGAM”, a name associated with a government-backed digital insurance marketplace initiative. The plaintiff, Bima Sugam India Federation, is a not-for-profit company incorporated under Section 8 of the Companies Act, 2013, and established under the direction of the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India (IRDAI) through the Bima Sugam (Insurance Electronic Marketplace) Regulations, 2024.

The IRDAI envisioned Bima Sugam as a unified digital marketplace for insurance services—covering policy purchase, claim settlement, and grievance redressal. The platform, as per IRDAI’s vision “Insurance for All by 2047,” was meant to democratize insurance access in India.

Soon after IRDAI’s public announcement in August 2022 of this upcoming platform, Defendant No. 1, A. Range Gowda, an insurance agent from Karnataka, registered two domain names — www.bimasugam.com and www.bimasugam.in in October 2022. Defendant No. 1 also created social media handles using the same mark, claiming to represent a firm called Bima Sugam Digital Solutions.

The plaintiff alleged that Defendant No. 1’s registration of these domain names was in bad faith, amounting to cybersquatting, since the name “Bima Sugam” was already widely known as a government initiative and associated with IRDAI. The defendant later demanded INR 50 crores as “compensation” for transferring these domains to the plaintiff, which the plaintiff claimed showed malafide intent.

Procedural Details:  The plaintiff filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction restraining Defendant No. 1 from using the mark “Bima Sugam,” along with a request for a mandatory injunction directing Defendant No. 2 (the domain registrar) to transfer the domain names to the plaintiff.  An ad-interim injunction was granted on 29th May 2025, restraining Defendant No. 1 from using the mark and directing that the domain names be locked and suspended pending final decision. The present order dated 16th October 2025 addresses the plaintiff’s request for the transfer of ownership of the domain names.

Nature of Dispute:  The dispute centers on three main questions:  Who is the prior user of the mark “Bima Sugam”? Whether Defendant No. 1’s adoption of the name and domain was bona fide or in bad faith? Whether the plaintiff is entitled to transfer of the domain names at this stage of proceedings?

Detailed Reasoning and Legal Analysis: The court observed that IRDAI had publicly announced the Bima Sugam initiative on 25th and 30th August 2022, well before the defendant’s registration of domain names in October 2022. These announcements received widespread media coverage, including reports on CNBC TV-18, and were subsequently reflected in IRDAI’s Annual Reports (2022–23 and 2023–24), which recognized Bima Sugam as a flagship public digital infrastructure.

The Bima Sugam Regulations, 2024, formally notified on 20th March 2024, defined the marketplace as a public infrastructure meant to serve consumers, insurers, and intermediaries. The plaintiff company was incorporated on 18th June 2024 to operate this platform on behalf of IRDAI.

The Court relied on precedents to clarify that goodwill and use of a trademark can arise from advertising and public announcements, even before commercial launch. Citing N.R. Dongre v. Whirlpool Corporation (1995 SCC OnLine Del 310) and Radico Khaitan v. Devans Modern Breweries Ltd. (2019 SCC OnLine Del 7483), the Court held that pre-launch publicity and preparatory acts amount to “use” of a trademark under Section 2(2)(c)(i) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. Thus, the plaintiff’s use of “Bima Sugam” through official announcements, public reports, and regulatory documents qualified as trademark use.

In contrast, Defendant No. 1’s claim of being the “first user” since 1st October 2022 was found unconvincing. He argued that “Bima Sugam” was a natural and descriptive combination of Hindi words meaning “easy insurance.” However, the Court found this claim inconsistent with his own trademark filings where he described “Bima Sugam” as an arbitrary and distinctive mark—contradicting his defense of genericness.

The defendant’s conduct further revealed bad faith. His trademark applications falsely claimed he was using the mark for manufacturing clothing, shoes, and other goods, despite admitting in pleadings that he never sold such items. His sworn affidavits before the Trademark Registry were found false. The Court concluded that such misrepresentation and contradictory claims negated his plea of honest adoption.

When the plaintiff’s stakeholders approached him through a legal notice in May 2024, the defendant demanded INR 50 crores for transferring the domains. The Court held that this exorbitant sum, disproportionate to his INR 5,000 registration cost, clearly showed cybersquatting and extortionate intent. His income tax returns revealed an annual income below INR 10 lakhs, further disproving any legitimate commercial interest.

The Court invoked the principle from Acqua Minerals Ltd. v. Pramod Borse (2001 SCC OnLine Del 444), where registering a domain name to sell or block a legitimate trademark holder constituted bad faith. It held that Defendant No. 1’s registration was primarily to obstruct IRDAI and the plaintiff from securing their rightful domain names.

The Court also rejected the defendant’s argument that transferring the domain names would amount to granting final relief at an interim stage. It noted precedents—Pfizer Products Inc. v. Altamash Khan (2005 SCC OnLine Del 1388), Eicher Ltd. v. Web Link India (2002 SCC OnLine Del 714), and Tata Sky Ltd. v. Sachin Cody (2011 SCC OnLine Bom 2126)—confirming that courts can issue interim mandatory injunctions to prevent irreparable harm in cases of cybersquatting or trademark misuse.

The Court emphasized the public interest element, noting that Bima Sugam was not a private commercial project but a statutory, national-level digital infrastructure initiative aimed at public benefit. Allowing a private individual to control or block its digital access points would directly undermine IRDAI’s regulatory vision of “Insurance for All by 2047.”Hence, the balance of convenience and irreparable injury strongly favored the plaintiff.

Judgment and Decision: The Delhi High Court held that Bima Sugam India Federation was the prior user of the mark and that Defendant No. 1’s adoption was dishonest and in bad faith. His demand for INR 50 crores further demonstrated cybersquatting and malafide intent.

Accordingly, the Court directed Defendant No. 2 (the domain registrar) to transfer the ownership of www.bimasugam.com and www.bimasugam.in to the plaintiff within two weeks. The plaintiff was directed to bear the official transfer costs.  The Court added that if the final trial were to favor Defendant No. 1, the domains would be re-transferred to him, and he would be compensated as determined by the Court.  Rejecting the arguments of delay and jurisdiction, the Court concluded that the plaintiff had established a strong prima facie case, and the balance of convenience lay entirely in its favor.

Conclusion: This judgment reaffirms key principles of Indian trademark and cyber law:  Publicity and preparatory acts can constitute trademark “use.” Bad faith registration and cybersquatting violate not only private rights but also public interest when national digital infrastructure is involved. Courts can grant interim mandatory injunctions to restore rightful ownership and prevent misuse of digital identifiers. The Court’s decision ensures that public digital initiatives like Bima Sugam are protected from private exploitation and misuse.

Case Title: Bima Sugam India Federation Vs. A. Range Gowda & Others

Date of Order: 16th October, 2025

Case Number: CS (COMM) 577/2025 

Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:9315

Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

Coram: Hon’ble Ms. Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora

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