Colgate Palmolive Company and its Indian subsidiary filed a commercial suit against the National Internet Exchange of India (NIXI) and an unknown registrant for infringement of their trademark "COLGATE" and related intellectual properties through a fraudulent domain name used to deceive the public by posing as the company, offering fake jobs, dealerships, and franchises, and collecting money via misleading websites mimicking the plaintiffs' content and logos. This suit was clubbed with a batch of similar matters involving various trademark owners facing domain name misuse for fraud, counterfeit sales, and impersonation services, where registrant identities were hidden behind fictitious WHOIS details, untraceable emails, and privacy protections, complicating enforcement. Over multiple hearings from 2019 to 2025, the court impleaded domain name registrars (DNRs) like GoDaddy, Hosting Concepts, Newfold Digital, Verisign, and Registry Services, along with government entities such as MeitY, DoT, MHA, RBI, NPCI, UIDAI, Delhi Police, and banks, seeking affidavits, status reports, and submissions on systemic issues including financial fraud investigations, bank cooperation with law enforcement, payment detail mismatches, grievance officer appointments, and privacy features. The court's reasoning examined the domain name system, roles and agreements under ICANN, NIXI, and Indian laws like the IT Act and Trademarks Act, finding DNRs and registries as intermediaries with due diligence obligations but insufficient safeguards against fraud, balancing privacy with disclosure needs, and emphasizing trademark owners' rights to prevent dilution and consumer deception through measures like dynamic injunctions. The court concluded that large-scale frauds necessitated reforms and issued directions to DNRs/registries for mandatory disclosure, verification, grievance mechanisms, and compliance; to government for stakeholder consultations, blocking non-compliant DNRs, and policy updates; for dynamic+ injunctions extending to future similar domains; and to banks for implementing beneficiary name lookup to prevent mismatches, while granting the plaintiffs permanent injunction against the defendant's use of "COLGATE", delivery up of infringing material, rendition of accounts, damages of Rs. 2,00,05,000, domain blocking/transfer, and disposal of pending applications.
- Domain Name Registrars (DNRs) and Registry Operators are obligated to disclose registrant details upon court orders and suspend/lock infringing domains to protect third-party intellectual property rights, as their current mechanisms under ICANN Registry-Registrar Agreements and NIXI Accreditation Agreements are insufficient without enhanced verification (Colgate Palmolive Company & Anr. vs NIXI & Anr., CS(COMM) 193/2019, Delhi High Court, Paras 163-200).
- Courts may direct DNRs and registries to implement safeguards like mandatory KYC, grievance officers, and privacy feature restrictions to prevent trademark misuse in domain registrations, recognizing domain names as extensions of business identity warranting protection against fraud (Colgate Palmolive Company & Anr. vs NIXI & Anr., CS(COMM) 193/2019, Delhi High Court, Paras 201-222).
- Non-compliant DNRs refusing court orders can face blocking directions under Section 69A of the IT Act, 2000, as intermediaries lose safe harbour for failing due diligence, with dynamic and dynamic+ injunctions extendable to future infringing domains (Colgate Palmolive Company & Anr. vs NIXI & Anr., CS(COMM) 193/2019, Delhi High Court, Paras 223-262).
- Banks must implement beneficiary bank account name lookup facilities to prevent payment mismatches in frauds, with enhanced cooperation protocols for law enforcement in cyber fraud investigations (Colgate Palmolive Company & Anr. vs NIXI & Anr., CS(COMM) 193/2019, Delhi High Court, Paras 236-250).
- Government authorities like MeitY and MHA shall conduct consultations and update policies for better coordination among stakeholders to curb domain-based financial frauds, including centralized databases for registrant data (Colgate Palmolive Company & Anr. vs NIXI & Anr., CS(COMM) 193/2019, Delhi High Court, Paras 248-250).
Case Title: Colgate Palmolive Company & Anr. Vs NIXI & Anr. Order Date: 24th December, 2025 Case Number: CS(COMM) 193/2019 & I.As. 5399/2019, 11497/2019, 18216/2019, 15451/2021, 31775/2024 Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:111674 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]
