Safiya Malik

The Delhi High Court has issued an injunction restraining certain unidentified registrants and domain name service providers from using, modifying, or transferring domain names that incorporate the plaintiff’s registered trademark, ‘BAAZI.’ The court directed domain registrars to suspend access to the infringing domain names and disclose details of the registrants. The proceedings were initiated by the plaintiff, Moonshine Technology Private Limited, which alleged that unknown entities had registered domain names incorporating its well-known trademark and were engaging in online betting and gambling services, causing harm to its business reputation and misleading consumers.

The suit was filed by Moonshine Technology Private Limited, which operates as the parent company of the Baazi Group of Companies. The plaintiff contended that it had been using the ‘BAAZI’ mark since 2014 for various gaming and fantasy sports platforms, including ‘PokerBaazi,’ ‘RummyBaazi,’ and ‘BalleBaazi.’ The plaintiff claimed that its trademark had gained substantial goodwill and was exclusively associated with its gaming platforms.

The plaintiff submitted that unidentified domain registrants had registered multiple domain names incorporating the term ‘BAAZI’ and were using them for online betting and gambling services. The plaintiff alleged that these registrants were engaging in "cyber-squatting," misleading consumers into believing that their services were associated with the plaintiff’s brand. The plaintiff further contended that these unauthorized websites diverted traffic away from its platforms and tarnished its reputation by associating the brand with illegal activities.

The suit also impleaded domain name registrars and government authorities, including the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, and the Department of Telecommunications, as proforma defendants. The plaintiff sought a perpetual and mandatory injunction, restraining the defendants from using its registered trademarks and engaging in deceptive trade practices.

The plaintiff submitted that its legal rights over the trademark ‘BAAZI’ had previously been recognized by the Delhi High Court in an earlier suit (CS(COMM) 331/2021), where third parties had been injuncted from using the mark for gaming services.

The plaintiff identified multiple domain registrants operating unauthorized websites and contended that the domain name registrars were complicit in these activities by allowing the registration of such domains and providing privacy protection services, which concealed the identities of the registrants.

The court examined the plaintiff’s submissions and reviewed the evidence, which included instances of unauthorized websites offering online gambling and casino services under domain names incorporating the ‘BAAZI’ trademark.

The court recorded: "Defendant Nos. 1 to 5 are hosting illegal gambling and casino websites through and under the infringing domain name/branding. The said registrant defendants are diverting the plaintiff’s customers and internet users at large, towards their websites with mala fide intent to indulge the said customers and users in illegal activities."

The court noted that the registrant defendants had masked their identities by using privacy protection features offered by domain name registrars. It observed that this practice prevented the plaintiff from obtaining details of the entities infringing upon its trademark. The court recorded

"The defendants have masked/not disclosed their crucial details in the domain name WHO IS as well as on their websites. The said and other such defendants would continue to defraud internet users and cause serious loss of revenue and reputation, largely irreparable, to the plaintiff, unless restrained urgently and immediately by this Court."

The court referred to a previous order in a similar matter (Dabur India Limited vs. Ashok Kumar & Ors., CS(COMM) 135/2022), where it had directed government authorities to block fraudulent websites and take measures to prevent misuse of domain name registrations.

The court also took note of advisories issued by the Government of India, including an advisory dated March 21, 2024, by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, cautioning against the endorsement and promotion of illegal online betting and gambling platforms. The court observed that, despite such advisories, certain entities continued to operate and advertise gambling platforms under misleading branding.

The court directed that defendant numbers 1 to 5, who had been found hosting gambling and casino websites under infringing domain names, were restrained from accessing, using, modifying, transferring, or disposing of the domain names listed in Annexure A of the order. These domain names, according to the plaintiff’s submissions, had been misleading consumers by falsely associating their services with the plaintiff’s brand.

With regard to the domain name registrars identified as defendant numbers 6 to 8, the court directed that they immediately suspend access to the infringing domain names and prevent the registrants from continuing their activities. The registrars were found to have registered multiple infringing domains that used the ‘BAAZI’ trademark and provided privacy protection features that concealed the identity of the actual registrants. The court recorded that such actions made it difficult for trademark owners to take legal measures against infringing entities.

The court also directed the domain name registrars to disclose the details of the registrants of the infringing domain names by way of an affidavit. The details of the registrants were to be provided to the plaintiff through email within one week from the date of the order. This directive was issued to ensure that the plaintiff had access to the necessary information to take further legal action against the unknown entities operating these websites.

The court further ordered that notice be issued to the unidentified registrants upon obtaining their details. Since the identities of defendant numbers 1 to 5 remained unknown at the time of the proceedings, the court allowed the plaintiff to amend its pleadings once the required information was received.

The matter has been scheduled for further hearing on July 28, 2025, at which point the court will examin compliance with its orders and determine any further actions to be taken based on the disclosures provided by the domain registrars.

Case Title: Moonshine Technology Private Limited vs. Ashok Kumar & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 124/2025
Bench: Justice Mini Pushkarna

[Read/Download order]