Delhi High Court - Orders
Smithkline Beecham Limited vs Gskfinancial.Com &Ors on 20 August, 2025
Author: Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
Bench: Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
$~16
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS(COMM) 95/2023, I.A. 3425/2023, I.A. 4341/2025, I.A.
4699/2025, I.A. 20358/2025, I.A. 20359/2025 & I.A. 20360/2025
SMITHKLINE BEECHAM LIMITED .....Plaintiff
Through: Mr. Urfee Roomi, Ms. Janaki Arun,
Mr. Ayush Dixit, Mr. Ritesh Kumar,
Mr. Arpit Singhal, Advs.
versus
GSKFINANCIAL.COM &ORS. .....Defendants
Through: Mr. Varun Mishra SPC with Mr.
Ashar Hussain, Advs. for D-7 & 8
Insp. Bhanwar Singh, IFSO/Spl. Cell,
Delhi for D-9
Ms. Nisha Mohandas and Mr. Jayesh
Khandelwal, Advs. for D-11
Mr. Neel Mason, Mr. Udit Tewari and
Mr. Nikhil Bharti, Advs. for D-12.
Mr. Madhav Khosla, Adv. for D-13
Ms. Swati Agarwal and Ms. Priyanka
Khosla, Advs. for D-14
Mr. Anubhav Garg, Adv. for D-31
Mr. Vinay Rathi, Adv. (DHCLSC) for
D-20
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA
ORDER
% 20.08.2025 I.A. 20358/2025 (Application under Order I Rule 10 read with Section 151 of CPC, 1908, for amendment of memo of parties and impleading additional Defendants)
1. The present application has been filed by the Plaintiff under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('CPC') seeking impleadment of proposed Defendant Nos. 37, 38 and 39 and for taking on record the amended memo of parties.
CS(COMM) 95/2023 Page 1 of 11This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/08/2025 at 22:18:07
2. Learned counsel for the Plaintiff refers to the injunction order dated 21.02.2023, 06.04.2023, 04.07.2023 and 21.02.2025, whereby similar rouge websites/domains were impleaded and injunction orders were passed against them. He states that the Plaintiff has been granted liberty to seek impleadment of such other rogue websites and/or links which are covered by the order dated 21.02.2023.
2.1. He states that on 25.08.2025 the Plaintiff/Applicant found out about two (2) new rogue websites i.e., MACCCS.VIP (proposed Defendant No.
37), and GLAXOSMITHKLINE-VIP.XYZ (proposed Defendant No. 38), which are covered by the interim order dated 21.02.2023 as these websites are operating under the identical modus operandi as the other rogue website(s) impleaded in the suit.
2.2. He states that the Domain Name Registrar which would be required to carry out the necessary direction issued by this Court is Dynadot LLC (hence it is the proposed Defendant No. 39) and Defendant No. 35.
3. This Court has perused the averments in the application and having perused the previous orders is of the opinion that, the impleadment of the aforesaid entities necessary for the proper and effective adjudication of the suit.
4. Accordingly, the aforesaid entities are impleaded as Defendants in the present suit.
5. Amended memo of parties be filed along with the application is taken on record.
6. The application is disposed of.
I.A. 20359/2025 (Application under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 CS(COMM) 95/2023 Page 2 of 11 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/08/2025 at 22:18:07 of CPC, 1908, for amendment of the plaint)
7. The present application has been filed on behalf of the Plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC for consequential amendments of the plaint.
8. The amendment is necessitated on account of the impleadment of the new Defendant Nos. 37, 38 and 39 and the purpose of the amendment is to make averments against the aforesaid newly impleaded Defendants.
9. Since, the suit is at an initial stage and the amendments do not change the nature and character of the suit, no prejudice will be caused to the Defendants.
10. Accordingly, the amendment is allowed. Amended plaint is taken on record.
11. The application stands disposed of.
I.A. 20360/2025 (Application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for grant of interim injunction)
12. The present application has been filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC for grant of interim injunction against the newly impleaded Defendant Nos. 37 and 38.
13. As recorded above in I.A. 20358/2025, this Court has allowed the impleadment of Defendant Nos. 37, 38 and 39 and in I.A. 20359/2025, this Court allowed the amendment of the plaint consequent to the said impleadment.
14. The relevant facts set out in the application are:
15. In August, 2025 the Plaintiff got to know about two (2) websites i.e., Defendant No. 37 and Defendant No. 38 that are operating in the same manner as the other rouge websites impleaded in the present suit. The CS(COMM) 95/2023 Page 3 of 11 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/08/2025 at 22:18:07 Plaintiff came across a Facebook post, dated 02.04.2025 promoting an investment platform under the name 'GlaxoSmithKline-USDT'. The post provides link to the investment platform with the domain name 'GLAXOSMITHKLINEVIP.XYZ'. While the domain name 'GLAXOSMITHKLINEVIP. XYZ' does not appear to be an active website as of now the screenshots shared with the Facebook post sufficiently establish that the website was being used in relation to operating fraudulent activities under the Plaintiff/Applicant's GSK Marks.
16. The said Facebook post provided a link to a Telegram Channel i.e., https://t.me/GSK0121which prominently features the channel name GLAXOSMITHKLINE (GSK) 24/7 CS and the GSK Device mark as the group picture. The concerned Facebook post and the Telegram Channel relate to the newly impleaded Defendant Nos. 37 and 38.
17. The details of the infringing activities carried out by Defendant Nos. 37 and 38, which are rogue website, are given in paragraphs no. '9', '10' and '11' of the application along with the relevant screenshots.
18. Learned counsel for the Plaintiff states that he is seeking reliefs for take down of the rogue websites i.e., Defendant No. 37 and Defendant No.
38. He also seeks take down of the Telegram Channel as set out in prayer clause (E).
19. Mr. Madhav Khosla, enters appearance on behalf of Defendant No. 13/Telegram. He states that the concerned telegram channel has already been locked. He states that the Defendant No. 13 will provide the details of the administrators/persons controlling the channel subject to the Plaintiff maintaining the confidentiality about the said details and using it only for legal proceedings.
CS(COMM) 95/2023 Page 4 of 11This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/08/2025 at 22:18:07
20. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
21. The averment made in the captioned application and the documents annexed there make out a prima facie case in favour of the Plaintiff. It is a serious matter since the Defendant Nos. 37 and 38 are holding themselves out to be acting on behalf of the Plaintiff and duping the public into investing huge amounts of money. The matter, therefore, is of utmost seriousness.
22. Balance of convenience is also in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant Nos. 37 and 38. Irreparable injury would be caused to the Plaintiff if the Defendant Nos. 37 and 38 continue to use the impugned marks/labels. Prejudice would also be caused to the public as the marks/labels used by the said Defendants are identical and/or deceptively similar to that of the Plaintiff.
23. Consequently, till the next date of hearing, Defendant No. 37, Defendant No. 38 and all others acting through them and on their behalf are restrained from infringing the Plaintiff's registered 'GSK' Marks.
24. Further newly impleaded Defendant No. 39, their directors, partners, proprietors, officers, affiliates, servants, employees, and all others in capacity of principal or agent acting for and, on their behalf, or anyone claiming through, by or under it, is directed to lock, suspend and make inaccessible the domain name registration of Defendant No. 37 and 38. In addition, to furnish names, addresses, email addresses, and phone/ mobile numbers of the registrant(s) of said domain name as available with the Defendant No. 39.
25. Defendants No.7/Department of Telecommunication (DoT) and CS(COMM) 95/2023 Page 5 of 11 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/08/2025 at 22:18:07 Defendant No. 8/Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MEITY) are directed to issue a notification calling upon the various Internet Service Providers (ISPs) registered under it to block access to Defendant No. 37 and Defendant No. 38.
26. In view of the submissions of the Defendant No. 13/Telegram the prayer clause (E) of the captioned application does not survive for consideration, at this stage. The statement of the Defendant No. 13 is taken on record and it is directed to provide the information of the of the administrators/operators of the said channels to the plaintiff, who will maintain confidentiality.
27. Order XXXIX Rule 3 of CPC be complied within seven (7) days from today.
28. Issue Notice.
29. Notice is accepted by counsel for Defendant Nos. 7 and 8.
30. Upon steps being taken by the Plaintiff, notice be issued to the Defendant Nos. 37, 38 and 39.
31. Replies be filed within four (4) weeks. Rejoinders if any be filed within two (2) weeks thereafter.
32. List before the learned Joint Registrar (J) on 10.10.2025. CS(COMM) 95/2023 Deletion of Defendant Nos. 11, 12, 14, 31
33. Learned counsels appearing for Defendant Nos. 11, 12, 14, 31 submit that they have already complied with the directions previously issued in this matter.
33.1 They submit that they may be exempted from further appearance. They state that, however, on an application-to-application basis in case their CS(COMM) 95/2023 Page 6 of 11 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/08/2025 at 22:18:07 presence is required, fresh service may be affected on them through the counsel who have already entered appearance.
34. Learned counsel for the Plaintiff is agreeable to the said suggestion.
35. Accordingly, Defendant nos. 11, 12, 14, 31 are exempted from further appearance.
36. Liberty is granted to the Plaintiff that in case it requires the presence of Defendant Nos. 11, 12, 14, 31 it can file an appropriate application after due service on the counsel who have entered appearance.
37. Similar exemption from appearance is granted to Defendant No. 13 after Defendant No. 13 has provided the particulars directed today in I.A. 20360/2025.
Direction to Defendant No. 938. Learned counsel for the Plaintiff states that a formal complaint dated 24.03.2025 has been filed with Defendant No. 9/ Cyber Crime Cell, Delhi Police in pursuance of this Court's orders dated 21.02.2025 and 07.03.2025. He states that in this complaint Plaintiff has provided bank accounts and UPI IDs used by the rogue websites.
39. Inspector Bhanwar Singh has appeared on behalf of Defendant No. 9. He states that the complaint has been received. He states that no citizen has registered a complaint on the NCCR1 portal. He states that the complaint against bank accounts and UPI IDs has not been examined, as of now. He states that the status report will be filed within four (4) weeks.
40. Inspector Bhanwar Singh is at liberty to join the proceedings through video conferencing link on the next date of hearing.
Direction to Defendant No. 35 1National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal.
CS(COMM) 95/2023 Page 7 of 11This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/08/2025 at 22:18:07
41. Learned counsel for the Plaintiff states that Defendant No. 35/ Gname.com PTE Ltd. has partially complied with the order dated 21.02.2025. He states that though the rogue website of Defendant No. 34 has been disabled, however, the directions in the order dated 21.02.2025 directing Defendant No. 35 to provide the names, addresses, e-mail address and phone/mobile numbers of the Registrant of the said domain have not been made available.
41.1. He states that the Plaintiff had followed up vide e-mail dated 12.03.2025 with Defendant No. 35, however, they have declined to share the said information.
41.2. He states that an affidavit placing on record the said e-mails shall be filed during the course of the day.
41.3. He states that in view of the response shared by e-mail and the non- representation of Defendant No. 35, he seeks blocking orders against Defendant No.35 for the non-compliance.
41.4. He refers to similar orders passed by the co-ordinate bench vide order dated 09.11.2022 in CS (COMM) 567/20222, at paragraphs '10' to '12' and the order dated 31.05.2023 in CS (COMM) 12/20223, which read as under:
The paragraph 10, 11 and 12 of the Order dated 09.11.2022 passed in CS (COMM) 567/2022 read as under:
"10. Mr. Kurup, ld. CGSC appearing for MeitY and DoT, submits that as and when the Plaintiffs have notified the departments about various infringing websites, which are involved in illegal streaming of the Plaintiffs' contents, proper blocking orders have been issued. If the Court has passed suspension and disclosure orders, the DNRs ought to have taken action in accordance with law. He however submits that through VPN networks, 2 Star India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. MHDTV.WORLD & Ors.3
New Balance Athletics Inc. v. NBSTORESININDIA.IN & Ors.CS(COMM) 95/2023 Page 8 of 11
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/08/2025 at 22:18:07 these DNRs may still be accessible, thus allowing streaming/hosting/etc. of infringing content to continue.
11. In the backdrop of the above discussion, insofar as the above listed DNRs, which are not giving effect to the orders of this Court, i.e., NameCheap Inc./Defendant No.13, Dynadot, LLC/Defendant No.14, Tucows Inc./Defendant No.16, Gransy s.r.o./Defendant No.17, and Sarek Oy/Defendant No.18, since DoT and MeitY are present before this Court, they are directed to immediately take action within one week against these DNRs for non-compliance of the orders passed by this Court. The authorities shall also look into the question as to whether these DNRs ought to be permitted to continue to offer their goods and services in India, if they are not giving effect to orders of Indian Courts and not complying with the applicable laws under the Information Technology Act, 2000, and the 2021 Rules.
12. Mr. Kurup, ld. CGSC, to file a status report as to action taken in this regard by DoT and MeitY, in respect of these DNRs, by the next date of hearing."
Order dated 31.05.2023 passed in CS(COMM) 12/2022 reads as under:
"
1. Pursuant to the order dated on 28th April, 2023 passed by this Court, an affidavit has been filed on behalf of defendant no.16, Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, giving complete background of orders passed in connected suit with regard to blocking of non-compliant DNRs. Paragraph 12 of the aforesaid affidavit states as under:
"12. That, in view of the above, it is submitted that this Answering Defendant shall take similar action of blocking of websites against the non-compliant DNRs in the present suit pursuant to a direction by this Hon'ble High Court. Such directions shall be immediately acted upon, including in terms of rule 10 of the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009...."
2. Counsel for the plaintiff submits that defendants no. 11 to 14 and defendants no.26 to 28 are foreign DNRs who have failed to comply with the repeated directions passed by this Court on 7th January, 2022, 24th January, 2022, 11th February, 2022 and 3rd June, 2022.
3. Therefore, in accordance with the directions passed by this Court on 9th November, 2022 in CS(COMM) 567/2022, the defendant no. 15, Department of Telecommunication (DoT) and the defendant no. 16, Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) respectively CS(COMM) 95/2023 Page 9 of 11 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/08/2025 at 22:18:07 are directed to immediately take action within two weeks against the following DNRs for non-compliance of the orders passed by this Court:
DEFENDANT NO. DOMAIN NAME REGISTRAR
1API GmbH Defendant no.11
Alibaba.com Singapore E- Defendant no.12
Commerce Pvt.Ltd.
Dynadot LLC Defendant no.13
Endurance Digital Domain Defendant no.14
Technology LLP
NameSilo, LLC Defendant no.26
Internet Domain Service BS Corp Defendant no.27
NETIM Sarl Defendant no.28
4. Status report as to the action taken by defendants no.15 and 16 in respect of these DNRs be filed at least one week before the next date of hearing.
5. List before the Joint Registrar on 31st July, 2023."
42. Mr. Varun Mishra, Advocate appears on behalf of Defendant Nos. 7 and 8.
43. The Court vide order dated 21.02.2025 (at paragraph '6') had directed DNR to provide the details of the Registrant. The request of the Plaintiff to Defendant no. 35 is in conformity with the said order. On reading, the e-mail received by the Plaintiff from Defendant No. 35 on 13.03.2025, it is apparent that Defendant No. 35 is refusing to comply with the directions of this Court.
44. In this view of the matter, Defendant Nos. 7 and 8 are directed to take action within two (2) weeks against Defendant No. 35 for non-compliance of the order dated 21.02.2025 vis-à-vis the Registrant details of Defendant No. 34.
45. The status report as to the action taken in respect of the said DNR be filed by Defendant Nos. 7 and 8 one (1) week prior to the next date of hearing.
CS(COMM) 95/2023 Page 10 of 11This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/08/2025 at 22:18:07 Summons to Defendant Nos. 37, 38 and 39
46. Issue summons to the newly added Defendant No. 39 through e-mail.
47. Summons to Defendant Nos. 37 and 38 shall be issued through all modes, after the Plaintiff files an amended memo of parties with respect to the details of the said Defendants.
48. The summons shall indicate that the written statements must be filed within thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of the summons. The Defendants shall also file affidavits of admission/denial of the documents filed by the Plaintiff, failing which the written statements shall not be taken on record.
49. The Plaintiff is at liberty to file replication thereto within thirty (30) days after filing of the written statements. The replication shall be accompanied by affidavit of admission/denial in respect of the documents filed by the Defendants, failing which the replication shall not be taken on record.
50. It is made clear that any unjustified denial of documents may lead to an order of costs against the concerned party.
51. Any party seeking inspection of documents may do so in accordance with the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018.
52. List before the learned Joint Registrar (J) on 10.10.2025.
MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J AUGUST 20, 2025/msh/SK CS(COMM) 95/2023 Page 11 of 11 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/08/2025 at 22:18:07