Delhi High Court Stays Single Judge’s Order Transferring ‘Bima Sugam’ Domain Names
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Delhi, Division Bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla has stayed the operation of a Single Judge’s order directing the transfer of the domain names www.bimasugam.com and www.bimasugam.in to Bima Sugam India Federation. The interim stay was granted in a dispute between the Federation and a private insurance agent concerning rights over the use of the mark “BIMA SUGAM.” The Court observed that the domains had been registered in the appellant’s name since 2022 and that their transfer during the pendency of the suit would allow the respondent to commercially exploit them. The stay will remain effective until the appeal is decided in January 2026.
The case arises from a commercial dispute concerning ownership and use of the domain names www.bimasugam.com and www.bimasugam.in. The respondent, Bima Sugam India Federation, filed a suit alleging that the appellant, a private insurance agent, had wrongfully registered and used the domain names containing the mark “BIMA SUGAM.” The respondent claimed prior rights over the mark, asserting continuous use since August 2022 following a public announcement by the Chairperson of the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India (IRDAI) regarding the “Bima Sugam” initiative. The appellant, on the other hand, maintained that he had legitimately registered the disputed domain names in October 2022 and had been using them since then.
Before the Single Judge, the respondent sought an injunction to restrain the appellant from using the domain names and requested their transfer. The Single Judge granted an interim injunction and directed transfer of the domain names to the respondent, subject to an undertaking to retransfer them if the appellant ultimately succeeded. The appellant challenged this part of the order before the Division Bench.
During the hearing, both sides advanced arguments on the principles of passing off. The appellant contended that the respondent had not established goodwill or prior use sufficient to sustain such a claim and that the impugned order effectively nullified his registration rights. The respondent relied on the IRDAI’s public announcement and asserted common law proprietorship over the mark.
The Division Bench recorded that the respondent was “not the owner of the domain names www.bimasugam.com and www.bimasugam.in” and that the said domains “undisputedly stand registered in favour of the appellant since October 2022.” The Court observed that the impugned order “effectively allow[ed] the respondent, even at interim stage when the suit is pending, to exploit the domain names which stand registered in favour of the appellant.” It stated that permitting such transfer would “efface the registration of the domain names in the appellant’s name at an interim stage.”
The Bench noted that the respondent “intends to launch an e-marketplace using the said domain names” and held that the respondent “cannot be permitted to exploit the domain names, registered in the appellant’s favour, for commercial profit, at an interim stage.” Referring to the nature of the claim, the Court recorded that “the case is, therefore, solely one of passing off,” as the respondent held no registration under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, for the mark “BIMA SUGAM.”
Citing Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha v. Prius Auto Industries Ltd., the Court stated that to sustain a claim of passing off, the plaintiff must “demonstrate the accumulation of sufficient goodwill, in its asserted mark, prior to user of the mark by the defendant.” It noted that the respondent announced its intent to use the mark only in August 2022, whereas the appellant registered the domain names in October 2022. The Court recorded that “there is no finding on goodwill earned by the respondent” and that the period of alleged continuous use before registration was “a mere three months.”
The Bench observed that “absent a specific finding of goodwill by the learned Single Judge, at this prima facie stage, the interim order of injunction could not have been passed.” It further stated that even assuming a prima facie case, “the respondent’s interests stand sufficiently protected by confirmation of the pre-existing ad interim order dated 29 May 2025.”
The Court directed that “Till the next date of hearing, there shall be a stay of operation of the impugned order dated 16 October 2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in IA 14214/2025 in CS (Comm) 577/2025 insofar as it directs transfer of the domain names www.bimasugam.com and www.bimasugam.in to the respondent.”
“Needless to say, this order shall abide by the final outcome of the present appeal. The appeal be set down for final hearing immediately on expiry of eight weeks from today i.e. on 12 January 2026. No extension of time for filing of written submissions would be granted. The matter would be argued and decided on the said date.”
Advocates Representing The Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. J. Sai Deepak, Senior Advocate with Mr. Paritosh Dhawan, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Akhil Sibal, Senior Advocate with Ms. Riddhie Bajaj, Ms. Swati Sharma, Mr. Rohin Koolwal and Mr. Pundreek Dwivedi, Advocates
Case Title: A Range Gowda v. Bima Sugam India Federation & Ors.
Case Number: FAO(OS)(COMM) 179/2025
Bench: Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla
