An Internet address, i.e., a domain name, acts as the primary means for consumers to locate a website. As much as the brand owners would desire to secure every permutation and combination of similar domain names to channel all traffic to their website, domain name registration is offered on a first-to-register basis, rendering it practically unfeasible to register all such variations. This loophole and the impunity of anonymity offered by the Internet often encourage individuals to exploit the goodwill and reputation of well-known brands for the sake of easy monetary gain.
In India, the former Chief Justice, Dr. Justice D Y Chandrachud, warned against a phishing attack involving a fake website impersonating the Supreme Court of India. The Supreme Court’s registry issued a public notice alerting the public to SCIGV.COM, a fraudulent domain resembling SCI.GOV.IN, which was used to solicit personal and confidential information. This incident is part of a broader surge in financial fraud, where perpetrators leverage deceptively similar domain names to mislead consumers. Beyond fraudulent domains, they utilize social media and paid news platforms to spread misinformation, lure individuals into scams, and invite them to broadcast groups on messaging apps like WhatsApp and Telegram.
Once users engage with deceptive domain names, fraudsters employ multiple revenue-generating tactics. Fake investment schemes promise high returns before vanishing with victims’ money. Fraudulent shopping websites mimic legitimate brands, tricking buyers into paying for counterfeit goods or, in some cases, never delivering any product after the payment is made. Phishing scams manipulate users into revealing sensitive data for identity theft or financial fraud. Some perpetrators park fraudulent domain names, earning advertising revenue while misleading visitors. Others redirect traffic to their platforms, increasing visibility and engagement for further exploitation.
Combating fraudulent domain scams requires vigilance and proactive measures. Here are some key remedies available to Brand Owners:
Domain Name Complaints/Takedowns:
Domain name complaints can be filed with the available authorities. Generally, an authority that may be approached depends on the top-level domain name, such as complaints against top-level domain names like .COM can be filed with various authorities under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP).
The UDRP established by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) provides a standardized procedure for resolving domain name disputes. It is adopted by all ICANN-approved domain registrars and administered by accredited dispute resolution service providers like the World Intellectual Property Arbitration and Mediation Centre and the Forum (formerly National Arbitration Forum). A key advantage of UDRP is that it allows filing complaints against multiple domain names if they share the same registrant. Additionally, many countries have their National or Regional Domain Name Resolution Policies governing country code top-level domains (ccTLDs). For instance, in India, the National Internet Exchange of India (NIXI) oversees the .IN Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy, which handles disputes related to .IN and .BHARAT domain names, ensuring better oversight of domain-related conflicts at a regional level.
Even though the domain name dispute resolution proceedings provide quick relief, they are not as effective a tool against such financial fraud because the perpetrators operate with multiple domain names, which are often registered using fake details. Therefore, the brand owner may cancel/transfer the domain name and receive the registrant’s details. However, typically, these details are fictitious, and the perpetrators continue to operate their fraudulent activities by switching from one domain name to another.
Court Action Against Domain Names:
Owing to the multifaceted web of fraudulent activities, addressing the issue solely through domain name complaints becomes impractical, which is why the brand owners have been compelled to move to courts to seek a comprehensive resolution by way of a civil suit which provides a holistic remedy against such domain name financial frauds, including relief against all ancillary tools being used by the perpetrators.
In a civil suit, brand owners can seek comprehensive blocking of fraudulent content including, removing social media posts/paid news coverage perpetrating the scam, and suspending fraudulent mobile applications, and suspension of bank accounts used to collect monies by the perpetrators, alleging trademark and copyright infringement, passing off, and other violations. Further, though fraudsters frequently use fictitious identities to evade detection, legal proceedings can seek disclosure of details by impleading relevant entities such as domain registrars, social media platforms, telecom providers, and banks. Additionally, the perpetrators often continue their fraudulent activities by introducing new domain names with minor changes to the domain name. Such resurfacing of domain names can be countered by filing a motion to add additional domain names and seeking similar orders against the new domain names. Brand owners may also involve government authorities like cyber cells to initiate investigations, with courts typically directing officials to examine fraudulent activities and submit timely status reports.
The rise of well-coordinated, multifaceted domain name frauds has led to a surge in civil suits seeking remedies against the misuse of trade marks of well-known brands. Given the significant public harm, courts have responded stringently, often granting swift ex-parte ad interim injunction orders to block fraudulent websites, remove misleading content, suspend instant messaging platforms used in scams, and disclose available perpetrator details from relevant platforms and authorities. Although court actions have played a crucial role in restricting the proliferation of such frauds, the perpetrators’ reliance on privacy services and falsified documents has made it challenging to uncover their true identities.
Batch of Matters Seeking Probable Solutions Before the Delhi High Court:
Acknowledging the widespread misuse of well-known trademarks such as DABUR, MICROSOFT, AMAZON, TATA, and AMUL, the Delhi High Court, rooted in Dabur India Limited v. Ashok Kumar & Ors., has consolidated numerous civil suits to address larger systemic issues surrounding deceptive domain names. This batch of cases involves key stakeholders, including ICANN, various Domain Name Registrars (DNRs), banks, MEITY, DOT, NIXI, and government investigation agencies, to collaborate on solutions. The court has issued significant orders, such as directing DNRs to appoint grievance officers in India and disclose registrant details. Additionally, it has considered blanket injunctions against registering domain names containing well-known trademarks, while weighing concerns from DNRs about potential restrictions on legitimate domain registrations. Another crucial aspect under scrutiny is the validity of privacy features offered by DNRs that allow registrants to conceal their identities, enabling fraudulent activities to persist. As per the latest position, the Delhi High Court has reserved its judgment in the batch of domain name matters, focusing on trademark infringement and the liability of DNRs for allowing registration of infringing domain names.
The rise of financial frauds using deceptively similar domain names has forced brand owners to take proactive steps to protect their intellectual property. While domain name complaints offer initial recourse, fraudsters often find ways around them, necessitating coordinated efforts from Cyber Police, MEITY, DOT, DNRs, and social media platforms to identify and act against perpetrators. With courts increasingly burdened by such cases and consumers continuing to suffer losses, government intervention is crucial to establish robust strategies that effectively deter and prosecute fraudsters, ensuring better protection in the digital space.
