Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

18. The injunction, of the nature / kind sought by the plaintiff and contested by defendants no.1&2, in legal parlance has come to be known as „Dynamic Injunction‟.

19. I have considered the entitlement of the plaintiff, in the facts and circumstances aforesaid, to a dynamic injunction restraining the defendants from, for all time registering a domain name similar / deceptively similar to that of the plaintiff and to remove any such mark registered inadvertently or found in future.

20. The power to adjudge similarity / deceptive similarity, under our laws, vests either in the Courts or in authorities / tribunals constituted by law to determine the same. Such power indeed entails adjudication of rival claims and even if not contested, does not entitle the grievant to, at the mere asking have removed the domain name registered by another, unless establishes a case of similarity / deceptive similarity. No such power is shown to have been vested by law in defendant no.1 and in the absence thereof, in my opinion, no such direction to defendant no.1, to exercise adjudicatory power, can be given. The judgments relied upon by the counsel for plaintiff, are qua intermediaries and not against Registrar of Domain Names. I however do not want to, in this proceeding, return a positive finding that defendant no.1 NIXI is not a intermediary within the meaning of Section 2(w) of the Information Technology Act, 2000. Suffice it is to state that the defendant no.1 NIXI, being a body corporate and not authorized by its Memorandum and Articles of Association, to do what the plaintiff wants this Court to direct defendant no.1 to do, cannot be so directed.

21. The dynamic injunction as sought by the plaintiff, will indeed require the defendant no.1 to, whenever anyone seeks registration of a domain name, examine and verify whether the same is similar to trade mark or domain name of plaintiff or for that matter, of any other person. Without the defendant no.1 being authorized in this regard, it cannot be directed to perform this task.

22. Merit is however found in contention of counsel for plaintiff, of infringers, merely by changing an alphabet and/or numerical, succeeding in defeating the injunctions granted. In my opinion, law and the legal system must keep pace with the infringers / violators and if fail to do so, will sound the death knell thereof, encouraging jungle raj.