Delhi High Court Upholds Interim Order Restricting Use of “Bima Sugam”, Orders Transfer of Disputed Domains to Federation for Bad-Faith Registration
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Delhi, Single Bench of Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, in an interim order, upheld its earlier direction restraining an insurance agent from using the mark “BIMA SUGAM” — a name linked to India’s forthcoming unified digital insurance marketplace — or any deceptively similar mark, including related domain names. The Court further directed that the disputed domains ‘bimasugam.com’ and ‘bimasugam.in’ be transferred to the Bima Sugam India Federation, which has been set up under the insurance regulator’s framework to operate the national e-marketplace. Holding that the individual’s registration of the domains was made in bad faith and constituted cybersquatting, the Court noted that the plaintiff was the rightful user of the “Bima Sugam” name essential for launching the public insurance platform.
The dispute concerns the use of the mark “BIMA SUGAM,” introduced for the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India’s proposed digital insurance marketplace. The plaintiff, Bima Sugam India Federation, a Section 8 company incorporated under the IRDAI Regulations 2024, filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction against an insurance agent (Defendant No. 1) for unauthorized use of the mark and related domain names — bimasugam.com and bimasugam.in — and for their transfer to the federation.
The plaintiff claimed prior use of the mark from 25 August 2022, following a public announcement by the IRDAI Chairperson. The claim was supported by media reports, IRDAI annual reports for 2022–23 and 2023–24, the Bima Sugam Regulations 2024, and the federation’s incorporation certificate dated 18 June 2024. The plaintiff also relied on its pending trademark application No. 6394121 for “BIMA SUGAM.”
Defendant No. 1 contended that he independently registered the disputed domains on 1 October 2022 for legitimate business purposes. He denied bad faith and argued that “Bima Sugam” was a combination of generic terms. He further stated that the plaintiff was not in existence when he registered the domains, that there was delay in filing the suit, and that the Court lacked jurisdiction.
Both sides referred to the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Evidence included WHOIS domain records, trademark filings, user affidavits, IRDAI regulations, and tax documents. The plaintiff alleged dishonest adoption and cybersquatting, while the defendant maintained bona fide use.
The Court began by examining whether the plaintiff had established prior use of the mark “BIMA SUGAM” and whether the defendant’s adoption was bona fide or in bad faith. It “is of the opinion that the plea of the Plaintiff that the activities [public announcements, extensive publication in electronic and print media, annual reports of IRDAI, notification of Bima Sugam Regulations, RFP issued for setting up of the platform] undertaken by the Plaintiff is publicity and constitute ‘use of a mark’ as contemplated in Section 2(2)(c)(i) of the Act of 1999 has merit.”
It “prima facie [found] the adoption of the trademark ‘BIMA SUGAM’ by the IRDAI/Plaintiff for insurance sector was in public domain w.e.f. 25th August, 2022 and its continuous use thereafter till date for the said mark is also evidenced from the record.” The Court noted that “Defendant No. 1 in its pleadings and written submissions has unequivocally asserted that the expression BIMA SUGAM was adopted by him on 1st October 2022, when Defendant No. 1 registered the impugned domain names and simultaneously created social media handles.”
The Court, therefore, “is of the considered opinion that the Plaintiff is the prior user of the ‘BIMA SUGAM’ mark on account of the public announcement made by the IRDAI Chairperson on 25th August 2022 and the continuous use of the second mark by IRDAI for the benefit of the Plaintiff thereafter.”
It “noted that the ‘BIMA SUGAM’ mark is arbitrary and distinct,” and that “filing of the said false user affidavit shows the lack of bonafide of Defendant No. 1 while applying for the registration.” It further “found that the adoption of ‘BIMA SUGAM’ mark by Defendant on 1st October 2022 by blocking the impugned domain names was not in good faith.”
The Court “is of opinion the demand of INR 50 crores… is wholly unjustified and disproportionate with the actual expense of INR 5000/- incurred for registering the impugned domains.” It “proves that Defendant No. 1 has blocked the impugned domain names and attempted to usurp the ‘BIMA SUGAM’ mark with an intention to sell and/or transfer the same for valuable consideration.”
It “does not find merit in the objections with respect to delay in filing of the present proceedings, as raised by Defendant No. 1 in view of the law settled by the Supreme Court in Midas Hygiene Industries v. Sudhir Bhatia.” Quoting the Supreme Court’s principle, it “held that in cases where prima facie it appears that the adoption of a mark was itself dishonest; the grant of injunction becomes necessary and mere delay in bringing action is not sufficient for grant of injunction in such cases.”
The Court “recorded that Defendant No. 1 has averred in its written submissions that this Court lacks the territorial jurisdiction to try this suit.” It “noted that the Defendant has filed I.A. 20489/2025 seeking rejection of the plaint on these grounds; the pleadings in the said application are yet to be completed and the issue of lack of jurisdiction will be decided in the said application.” It “stated that the pleas raised in the written submission in this regard cannot be agitated by Defendant No. 1 and is beyond the oral submissions.” The Court “recorded that as held by the Division Bench in Tata Sons Private Limited v. Hakunamatata Tata Founders, notwithstanding the objection of territorial jurisdiction, the Court can decide the application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC.”
Finally, the Court “recorded that the purpose for establishment of the digital public infrastructure - BIMA SUGAM - Insurance Electronic Marketplace is to achieve the vision of ‘Insurance for all by 2047’… Thus, the balance of convenience is in favour of the Plaintiff herein.”
Accordingly the Court ordered: “Defendant No. 2 shall transfer the domain names www.bimasugam.com and www.bimasugam.in to the Plaintiff within two weeks from today. The Plaintiff shall pay the prescribed costs to Defendant No. 2 for transfer of the said domain names. The said direction is subject to the final decision in the suit and upon the condition that, in case the suit is decided against the Plaintiff and in favour of Defendant No. 1, the domain names www.bimasugam.com and www.bimasugam.in shall be re-transferred to Defendant No. 1 and the Plaintiff would be liable to Defendant No. 1 and shall suitably compensate Defendant No. 1, as may be determined by the Court.”
“The ad-interim order dated 29th May 2025 is confirmed and I.A. 14214/2025 is allowed. .A. 20564/2025, which is an application under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of CPC filed by Defendant No. 1 seeking vacation of interim order dated 29th May 2025, stands dismissed.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Plaintiff: Mr. Akhil Sibal, Senior Advocate with Ms. Swati Sharma, Mr. Rohin Kolwal, Ms. Ridhie Bajaj, Mr. Sugandh Shahi and Mr. Pundreek Dwivedi, Advocates.
For the Defendants: Mr. Ashish Mohan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Paritosh Dhawan, Advocate for Defendant No. 1; Mr. Mrinal Ojha, Mr. Debarshi Dutta, Mr. Arjun Mookerjee and Mr. Yogesh Singh, Advocates for Defendant No. 2.
Case Title: Bima Sugam India Federation v. A Range Gowda & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:9315
Case Number: CS(COMM) 577/2025 & I.A. 20489/2025, I.A. 20564/2025
Bench: Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
