Court’s Decision
The Delhi High Court directed that the domain names ‘bimasugam.com’ and ‘bimasugam.in’ be transferred to the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India (IRDAI)-backed entity, which operates the ‘BIMA SUGAM’ digital insurance marketplace. Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora held that the defendant’s registration of the said domains was in bad faith, noting that “cybersquatting cannot be allowed to prevent public interest projects of statutory origin.” The Court found the plaintiff to be the prior user of the ‘BIMA SUGAM’ mark, and observed that the defendant’s demand of ₹50 crores for transfer of the domains was “wholly unjustified and indicative of malafides.”
The Court thus issued a mandatory injunction at the interim stage, directing the registrar (Defendant No. 2) to transfer the domain names within two weeks, subject to retransfer if the final suit goes against the plaintiff.
Facts
The plaintiff, a Section 8 company established under the IRDAI (Bima Sugam – Insurance Electronic Marketplace) Regulations, 2024, was created to build the BIMA SUGAM platform — a one-stop public infrastructure for insurance purchase, service, and claim settlement aimed at achieving the vision of “Insurance for All by 2047.”
The mark “BIMA SUGAM” was first publicly announced by IRDAI’s Chairperson on 25 August 2022 during an industry summit and widely publicised. Soon after, in October 2022, the defendant, an insurance agent, registered the domains bimasugam.com and bimasugam.in and created social-media accounts using the same mark. When the plaintiff sought transfer, the defendant demanded ₹50 crores. The plaintiff alleged cybersquatting and bad-faith adoption, while the defendant claimed to be a prior user who had coined the expression independently.
Issues
- Whether the plaintiff or the defendant was the prior user of the “BIMA SUGAM” mark.
- Whether the defendant’s adoption of the mark and registration of the domains were in bad faith.
- Whether the demand of ₹50 crores for transfer of the domain names was reasonable or extortionary.
- Whether a mandatory injunction for transfer of the domain names could be granted at the interim stage.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The plaintiff contended that “BIMA SUGAM” was coined by IRDAI and publicly associated with its national insurance-digitalisation initiative since 2022. Extensive media coverage, official annual reports, and the 2024 Regulations proved continuous use of the mark.
The defendant’s act of registering identical domains immediately after public announcements, and demanding exorbitant compensation, was presented as classic cybersquatting. The plaintiff cited Acqua Minerals Ltd v. Pramod Borse, Pfizer Products Inc v. Altamash Khan, and Tata Sky Ltd v. Sachin Cody, urging that domain transfers have been ordered in similar cases where bad-faith registration was evident.
It was further argued that the defendant, being a LIC agent without an ISNP licence, could not legally operate an insurance marketplace, making his explanation of bona fide use implausible.
Respondent’s Arguments
The defendant maintained that he had adopted the words bima (insurance) and sugam (easy) in good faith, being descriptive Hindi terms. He registered the domains on 1 October 2022 and used them only as informational portals, not for commercial transactions.
It was argued that the plaintiff’s company was incorporated later, in June 2024, hence it could not claim prior use. The defendant invoked S. Syed Mohideen v. P. Sulochana Bai and Neon Laboratories Ltd v. Medical Technologies Ltd, asserting priority of user. He claimed the ₹50-crore demand reflected future revenue losses, and that interim transfer would amount to granting final relief, citing Dorab Cawasji Warden v. Coomi Sorab Warden.
Analysis of the Law
Justice Arora held that publicity and promotion amount to “use” of a trademark within the meaning of Section 2(2)(c)(i) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, relying on N. R. Dongre v. Whirlpool Corp., Radico Khaitan v. Devans Modern Breweries, and Burger King Corp v. Techchand Shewakramani. The Court observed that IRDAI’s public announcements and continuous reference to “BIMA SUGAM” in its official documents established prior adoption and goodwill well before the defendant’s registration.
The defendant’s user affidavits in his trademark applications were found false and inconsistent, as he had claimed to manufacture clothing and provide unrelated services under “BIMA SUGAM.” The Court noted that such misrepresentations before the Trade Marks Registry proved lack of bona fides.
Precedent Analysis
- N. R. Dongre v. Whirlpool Corp. – Advertisement and publicity constitute trademark use even without physical products.
- Radico Khaitan v. Devans Modern Breweries – Pre-launch activities amount to use under the Trade Marks Act.
- Acqua Minerals Ltd v. Pramod Borse – Sets tests of bad-faith domain registration under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy.
- Pfizer Products Inc v. Altamash Khan, Eicher Ltd v. Web Link India, and Tata Sky Ltd v. Sachin Cody – Uphold interim directions for transfer of domain names registered in bad faith.
These cases guided the Court in concluding that the defendant’s conduct satisfied all three UDRP criteria: confusing similarity, absence of legitimate interest, and registration and use in bad faith.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court found that the defendant registered the domains just weeks after IRDAI’s public announcement, demonstrating opportunism. His claim of independent coining was rejected as implausible. The ₹50-crore demand, when his actual domain-registration cost was ₹5,000 and annual income below ₹9 lakhs, was deemed “grossly disproportionate and extortionary.”
Citing Acqua Minerals, the Court held that the defendant’s intent to sell the domains for unjust enrichment qualified as bad-faith registration. The defendant’s conduct in filing false affidavits and blocking the domains impeded a public-interest project.
While acknowledging that interim mandatory injunctions are granted sparingly, the Court noted that restoration of the status quo ante—in which the domains would have belonged to the plaintiff—was necessary to prevent irreparable harm to the national insurance-digitalisation initiative.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court concluded that:
- The plaintiff is the prior user of the “BIMA SUGAM” mark.
- The defendant’s adoption and domain registrations were in bad faith.
- The ₹50-crore demand confirmed malafides and cybersquatting intent.
- The balance of convenience and public interest favour the plaintiff.
Accordingly, the Court directed Defendant No. 2 (domain registrar) to transfer the domains “bimasugam.com” and “bimasugam.in” to the plaintiff within two weeks, subject to possible retransfer if the suit’s final outcome favours the defendant.
Implications
This judgment reinforces the protection of public-interest digital initiatives against cybersquatting and clarifies that advertising and pre-launch publicity can establish prior use of a mark. It also confirms that courts may grant interim transfer of domain names where statutory or public projects risk obstruction. The ruling sends a clear message that opportunistic domain registration of government or regulatory projects will invite judicial intervention.