Tata Sky Limited Vs S G Enterprises

Tata Sky Limited, a joint venture between Tata Sons and 21st Century Fox providing DTH services under the well-known trademark "TATA SKY" since 2006 with over 17 million subscribers, filed this 2019 suit against unknown defendants for trademark infringement, passing off, and unfair competition via fraudulent domains like tataskysales.com and tataskychennai.com mimicking their site, logo, and content to defraud public by soliciting payments for connections, recharges, jobs into unrelated accounts. As part of a batch of suits addressing cyber fraud through infringing domains registered anonymously with privacy shields, proceedings from 2019-2025 involved ex-parte interim injunctions in January 2019 suspending domains and extended, impleading DNRs like GoDaddy, registries like Verisign and Registry Services LLC, entities including ICANN, MeitY, DoT, MHA, RBI, NPCI, IBA, NIXI, Delhi Police; hearings elicited affidavits, status reports on investigations with FIRs and chargesheets in some cases, CEIB SOPs for bank-LEA cooperation in May 2024, RBI mandating beneficiary name lookup in December 2024, grievance officer appointments, stakeholder consultations; judgment reserved May 31, 2025. The court reasoned domain names constitute the online soul of businesses necessitating safeguards against goodwill erosion and deception; examined ICANN-governed domain system imposing verification, anti-abuse, disclosure, compliance duties on DNRs/registries; noted deficiencies in KYC, default privacy facilitating fraud, due diligence lapses risking IT Act s.79 safe harbour, privacy balanced with rights under DPDP Act; highlighted dynamic/dynamic+ injunctions for rogue sites, non-compliance justifying IT Act s.69A blocks for public order impacts from widespread frauds; addressed payment mismatches and LEA aid. The court issued directions to DNRs/registries for opt-in privacy, 72-hour disclosures, permanent blocks, no alternatives for well-known marks, local officers, e-KYC, TMCH, data sharing; to government for frameworks, repositories, lists; dynamic+ criteria; to banks for name lookup and SOPs; for this suit, granted permanent/dynamic+ injunction restraining use/passing off, mandatory blocks/takedowns by registries/DNRs/DoT/MeitY/ISPs/search engines, domain transfers, full disclosures, suit decreed via summary judgment under Order XIII-A CPC/IPD Rules r.27 without damages, list for further proceedings January 28, 2026.

- Domain Name Registrars (DNRs) and Registry Operators are obligated under ICANN agreements to verify registrant details, investigate inaccuracies/abuse, provide WHOIS/RDDS access, comply with court orders, and prevent registrations violating third-party rights, with failure risking termination or safe harbour loss under IT Act s.79: Tata Sky Limited v. S G Enterprises – Tata Sky Sales and Services and Ors., CS(COMM) 20/2019 (High Court of Delhi, December 24, 2025), Paras 261-262, 272.

- Privacy protect shall not be default/opt-out; offered only on opt-in as paid value-added service separate from registration package: Tata Sky Limited v. S G Enterprises – Tata Sky Sales and Services and Ors., CS(COMM) 20/2019 (High Court of Delhi, December 24, 2025), Para 279(A)(i).

- DNRs must disclose specified registrant/admin/tech/payment/hosting details to legitimate interests/LEAs/courts within 72 hours under Intermediary Guidelines 2021: Tata Sky Limited v. S G Enterprises – Tata Sky Sales and Services and Ors., CS(COMM) 20/2019 (High Court of Delhi, December 24, 2025), Para 279(A)(ii).

- Infringing domains adjudged illegitimate shall be permanently blocked by registries/DNRs, not re-registered or pooled: Tata Sky Limited v. S G Enterprises – Tata Sky Sales and Services and Ors., CS(COMM) 20/2019 (High Court of Delhi, December 24, 2025), Para 279(A)(iii).

- For well-known/invented marks with reputation in India, injunctions bar alternative domains/extensions/mirrors/alphanumerics: Tata Sky Limited v. S G Enterprises – Tata Sky Sales and Services and Ors., CS(COMM) 20/2019 (High Court of Delhi, December 24, 2025), Para 279(A)(iv).

- DNRs shall not promote/suggest alternatives to injuncted domains, else lose safe harbour: Tata Sky Limited v. S G Enterprises – Tata Sky Sales and Services and Ors., CS(COMM) 20/2019 (High Court of Delhi, December 24, 2025), Para 279(A)(v).

- For descriptive/generic marks, injunctions specific but extendable via Joint Registrar intervention: Tata Sky Limited v. S G Enterprises – Tata Sky Sales and Services and Ors., CS(COMM) 20/2019 (High Court of Delhi, December 24, 2025), Para 279(A)(vi).

- Injuncted domains transferable to TM owner on usual charges: Tata Sky Limited v. S G Enterprises – Tata Sky Sales and Services and Ors., CS(COMM) 20/2019 (High Court of Delhi, December 24, 2025), Para 279(A)(vii).

- No promotion/optimization services by search engines/DNRs to infringing domains: Tata Sky Limited v. S G Enterprises – Tata Sky Sales and Services and Ors., CS(COMM) 20/2019 (High Court of Delhi, December 24, 2025), Para 279(A)(viii).

- All DNRs in India to appoint local Grievance Officers within one month, publish contacts: Tata Sky Limited v. S G Enterprises – Tata Sky Sales and Services and Ors., CS(COMM) 20/2019 (High Court of Delhi, December 24, 2025), Para 279(A)(ix).

- Email service on Grievance Officer sufficient; insistence on MLAT/other modes deems non-compliant: Tata Sky Limited v. S G Enterprises – Tata Sky Sales and Services and Ors., CS(COMM) 20/2019 (High Court of Delhi, December 24, 2025), Para 279(A)(x).

- Courts may direct MeitY/DoT to block non-compliant DNRs/services under IT Act s.69A for public order: Tata Sky Limited v. S G Enterprises – Tata Sky Sales and Services and Ors., CS(COMM) 20/2019 (High Court of Delhi, December 24, 2025), Paras 279(A)(xi), (B)(c).

- Registries to implement Trademark Clearinghouse for all brands: Tata Sky Limited v. S G Enterprises – Tata Sky Sales and Services and Ors., CS(COMM) 20/2019 (High Court of Delhi, December 24, 2025), Para 279(A)(xii).

- DNRs in India to verify registrant details via e-KYC per CERT-In circular, periodically: Tata Sky Limited v. S G Enterprises – Tata Sky Sales and Services and Ors., CS(COMM) 20/2019 (High Court of Delhi, December 24, 2025), Para 279(A)(xiii).

- DNRs under NIXI to provide registration data monthly: Tata Sky Limited v. S G Enterprises – Tata Sky Sales and Services and Ors., CS(COMM) 20/2019 (High Court of Delhi, December 24, 2025), Para 279(A)(xiv).

- Government to consult on NIXI-like framework, nominate nodal data repository, enable TMCH, publish well-known marks/websites list: Tata Sky Limited v. S G Enterprises – Tata Sky Sales and Services and Ors., CS(COMM) 20/2019 (High Court of Delhi, December 24, 2025), Para 279(B), (xvi).

- Dynamic+ injunction applies to exact marks, prefix/suffix/alphanumeric variations; legitimate registrants may seek court order: Tata Sky Limited v. S G Enterprises – Tata Sky Sales and Services and Ors., CS(COMM) 20/2019 (High Court of Delhi, December 24, 2025), Para 279(C)(xvii).

- Banks to mandatorily implement Beneficiary Name Lookup per RBI circular and abide by CEIB SOP for LEAs: Tata Sky Limited v. S G Enterprises – Tata Sky Sales and Services and Ors., CS(COMM) 20/2019 (High Court of Delhi, December 24, 2025), Para 279(D).

Case Title: Tata Sky Limited Vs S G Enterprises – Tata Sky Sales and Services and Ors.  

Order date: 24th December, 2025  

Case Number: CS (COMM) 20/2019 & I.A. 561/2019  

Neutral Citation: N/A  

Name of court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi  

Name of Judge: Justice Prathiba M. Singh  

[Readers are advised not to treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation]  

[Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi]