Repeated Non Compliance Of Judicial Orders By Domain Name Registrars Can Be Construed As Violation Of Public Order: Union Govt To Delhi High Court

The union Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology has told the Delhi High Court that repeated non-compliance of judicial orders by any domain name registrars (DNR) can be construed as violation of public order and its website or URL can be blocked by the court under section 69A of the Information Technology Act.

Section 69A grants power to the Central Government to issue directions for blocking of any information through any computer resource.

MeiTY has made the submission in its status report filed on March 25 in a bunch of pleas concerning proliferation of fraudulent domain names. The petitions have been  filed by trademark and brand owners seeking reliefs against misuse of their marks and names by unauthorized persons, who register such marks as part of their domain names.

The Ministry has submitted that though the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, provide a grievance redressal mechanism by the intermediary, they do not provide any specific penalty for infringement or violation of the provisions or any other matter pertaining to the computer resources made available by the intermediary.

“That under the afore-said IT Rules, 2021, the intermediaries are required to take stringent steps in order to avail of the safe harbour clause under section 79 of the IT Act, 2000. That in case any DNRs do not comply with the competent court's orders, the safe harbour clause provided to such DNRs under section 79 of the IT Act will not be applicable. That, however, the IT Rules 2021 does not prescribe any penalty /fine for infringing the provisions,” the status report states.

Referring to the response, Justice Prathiba M Singh noted that the Ministry had followed up with Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) regarding the issue of infringement of domain name and non-compliance of court orders by DNRs.

ICANN is a private and non-government corporation with the responsibility for IP address space allocation, domain name system management and root server system management functions.

As per ICANN’s policy, it may terminate a registrar's Registrar Accredited Agreement where a court determines that the registrar has failed to comply with a judicial order.

The status report states that India’s representative to the Government Advisory Committee of ICANN in a meeting held last month discussed the issue of domain name abuse and the lack of stringent verification process.

“That the answering Respondent will continue to deliberate and take up the issues highlighted above on the ICANN and other similar internet governance forums in the future,” the report adds.

Considering the stand of the Ministry and the provisions of the relevant laws, Justice Singh asked the lawyers in the matter to make submissions on May 26, the next date of hearing.

The court said that the submissions will concern the manner in which final orders can be passed in similar suits to ensure that the orders of injunction qua infringing domain names are given effect to by DNRs and other authorities so that more and more consumers are not misled.

“The issues raised by MeitY in its status report as also the issues being considered by this Court on behalf of several IP owners and DNRs, raise various questions in respect of how to give effect to orders passed by Indian Court, especially by DNRs, who specifically take a stand that they would only be bound by orders passed by the competent Courts within their own jurisdiction,” the court noted.

In February, the court had directed MeiTY and Department of Telecommunications to take action in accordance with Information Technology Rules, 2021 against DNRs who are not complying with the Rules. 

It had observed that stringent steps are required to be taken in order to “curb the menace of illegal domain name registrations” having marks and names of well-known business houses.

It particularly called for action against those DNRs which have not appointed grievance officers or have failed to implement orders of courts and authorities in India. 

Earlier, the court in September last year had asked various DNRs to submit details of their Grievance Officers and directed DOT and MeITY to take action in accordance with law, in case the DNRs have not appointed the officers.

Case Title: DABUR INDIA LIMITED v. ASHOK KUMAR AND ORS and other connected matters

Click Here To Read Order