JUDGMENT Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)--This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. 2. These matters relate to domain names being registered by unknown third parties infringing trademark right of various brand owners and implementation of court orders by the Domain Name Registrars (` DNR '). From time to time, various directions have been passed by this Court in respect of blocking and locking of the infringing domain names, and implementation of court orders by various DNRs, which may or may not be located in India. 3. Vide previous order dated 10th February, 2023, the following directions were issued: "8. In view of the aforementioned facts which have come to light through MEITY's status report, the submissions made before this Court from time to time and the e-mails which have been placed on record today, such as e-mails by Namecheap Inc, it is clear that stringent steps would be required to be taken, in order to curb the menace of illegal domain name registrations having well known marks and names of business houses. It is accordingly directed that MEITY/DoT/the appropriate authority shall take steps action in accordance with the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 against DNRs who do not agree to comply with the said Rules or do not appoint grievance officers or implement orders of Indian Courts/Authorities. 9. Ld. Counsel for the Plaintiffs are free to communicate with the official from MEITY Mr. Pradip Verma, who shall act as the nodal officer for this purpose to coordinate with DoT and any other authorities, at the e-mail address pradip.verma@meity.in and submit their respective lists of DNRs who are stated to be not complying with the orders passed by this Court and not appointing the grievance officers. 10. It is directed that the concerned MEITY/DOT officials shall peruse the various orders which are passed in these proceedings prior to taking any action under the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021. Steps in respect thereof, in terms of Rules be taken within four weeks. The action so taken shall be placed on record by MEITY by means of a status report by the next date of hearing." 4. Pursuant to the above order, today, a status report dated 25th March, 2023 has been placed on record on behalf of MeitY, which has been signed by Mr. V. Chinnaswami, Scientist, MeitY. The action so taken shall be placed on record by MEITY by means of a status report by the next date of hearing." 4. Pursuant to the above order, today, a status report dated 25th March, 2023 has been placed on record on behalf of MeitY, which has been signed by Mr. V. Chinnaswami, Scientist, MeitY. The following aspects and stand of the MeitY have been elaborated upon in the said status report: i. The first aspect that has been considered in the status report is in respect of action that can be taken by ICANN against the DNRs which do not give effect to orders of the court of competent jurisdiction. The status report informs the Court that MeitY had followed up with ICANN in respect of issued involving domain name infringement and non-compliance of court orders by DNRs. By reply dated 31st January, 2023, the clarification given by the ICANN is to the following effect: "4. That Internet Governance Division of MeitY followed up with the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (hereinafter referred to as 'ICANN') on the issues involving domain name infringement and non-compliance of DNRs in a related matter. ICANN, in its response placed at Annexure I, has submitted as follows. That Section 5.5.2.1.4 of the RAA (Registrar Accredited Agreement) states that ICANN may terminate a registrar's RAA where a court of competent jurisdiction determines that the registrar has failed to comply with the terms of an order issued by a court of competent jurisdiction relating to the use of domain names sponsored by the registrar. If evidence is received, ICANN Contractual Compliance would follow its established process and take enforcement action as permitted by the RAA. The RAA provides various means of redress for consideration; termination of the RAA is not the only option provided. 5. That pursuant to the process established by ICANN and as per the aforesaid response of ICANN, submissions through the ICANN Contractual Compliance Mechanism were made in the matter of Dabur India Ltd against the offending DNRs. The record of the complaint lodged against DNRs through the ICANN Contractual Compliance Mechanism is placed at Annexure II. 6. 5. That pursuant to the process established by ICANN and as per the aforesaid response of ICANN, submissions through the ICANN Contractual Compliance Mechanism were made in the matter of Dabur India Ltd against the offending DNRs. The record of the complaint lodged against DNRs through the ICANN Contractual Compliance Mechanism is placed at Annexure II. 6. That, further, India's representative to the Government Advisory Committee of ICANN highlighted the issue of domain name abuse and the lack of stringent verification process and reliability of available registrant data in the Domain Name Space in the "ICANN76" Meeting held from 11-16 March 2023. That in the said meeting, following proper WHOIS Accuracy to curtail the growing number of DNS Abuse related litigation was stressed upon. That the answering Respondent will continue to deliberate and 7 take up the issues highlighted above on the ICANN and other similar internet governance forums in the future." ii. In respect of second aspect, i.e., global mechanism pertaining to Domain Name Dispute Resolution, the MeitY status report captures the existing UDRP and INDRP policies. In addition, it is also stated that in the US, apart from the ICANN policy on Domain Name Dispute Resolution provisions of the Anti-cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, 1999 can also be invoked. iii. On the third aspect of implementation of court orders by the DNRs, the status report sets out Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, along Rules 3, 4, 6 & 10 of the IP (Blocking) Rules, 2009. On the said aspect, the conclusion of MeitY is as under: "22. That, it is submitted that in the present case, if any DNR repeatedly does not comply with the directions of the Hon'ble Court, the same may be construed as a violation of public order and considered relatable grounds for ordering the blocking of the website/URL of such non-compliant DNR by the competent court under section 69A of the IT Act, 2000, if the competent court so directs. However, it is respectfully submitted that such blocking may have some adverse effect on the registrations of the non-compliant DNR, details of which are provided below." Thus, the submission of MeitY is that if there is `repeated' non-compliance of court orders by any DNR, in that case its conduct can be construed as a violation of public order and the website/URL of the non-compliant DNR itself can be blocked by the court under Section 69A of the IT Act. iv. On the fourth aspect of the impact of blocking websites of DNRs, which is primarily a sequitur of the suggestion made by MeitY on the third aspect, concern has been expressed by MeitY that various domain name registrants could be inconvenienced in accessing services of renewals, transfers, record updates, name update etc., if the website/URL of Domain Name Registrars are blocked. v. On the fifth aspect qua the requirement of due diligence by intermediaries, the status report states that if due diligence is not observed by intermediaries, the safe harbour protection given to the intermediary under Section 79 of the IT Act will not be applicable. vi. Lastly, in respect of appointment of Grievance Officers under the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code), 2021, the stand of the MeitY is as under: "33. That IT Rules, 2021 provide a grievance redressal mechanism by the intermediary, directing intermediaries to publish on its website, mobile-based application or both, as the case may be, the name of the Grievance Officer and his contact details as well as the mechanism by which a user or a victim may make a complaint against violation of the provisions of the IT Rules 2021 or any other matter pertaining to the computer resources made available by the intermediary. However, IT Rules, 2021 does not provide any specific penalty for infringement of the same. 34. That under the afore-said IT Rules, 2021, the intermediaries are required to take stringent steps in order to avail of the safe harbour clause under section 79 of the IT Act, 2000. That in case any DNRs do not comply with the competent court's orders, the safe harbour clause provided to such DNRs under section 79 of the IT Act will not be applicable. That, however, the IT Rules 2021 does not prescribe any penalty/fine for infringing the provisions." 5. That in case any DNRs do not comply with the competent court's orders, the safe harbour clause provided to such DNRs under section 79 of the IT Act will not be applicable. That, however, the IT Rules 2021 does not prescribe any penalty/fine for infringing the provisions." 5. The RBI has also placed its affidavit on record in respect of the direction passed by this Court on 10th February, 2023 to the following effect: "18. ld. Counsel for the RBI to seek instructions as to whether the RBI can issue guidelines making it mandatory for banks to match the beneficiary's name/name in the billing details with the account holder's name and not merely the account number, whenever banks accepts online or offline payments." 6. The RBI's affidavit which is sworn by Mr. Ajay Abrol, Assistant General Manager, Department of Supervision (Banking), RBI states that in view of the manner in which names of account holders can be spelt, there can be mismatch of spellings in the names and, as a result a large number of transactions could get rejected, if the matching of beneficiary name with the account number is mandated. However, the affidavit adds as under: "6. It is further submitted that Digital Payment products provides beneficiary name verification services which the originator can use to verify the name of the account to which funds are being transferred prior to initiating transfer. At present, the facility of beneficiary name lookup at the time of origination of transaction is available for UPI. RBI is exploring the feasibility for introduction of the aforesaid facility in other payment products such as RTGS, NEFT, IMPS etc both in online and off-line i.e. at the bank branch modes, and steps would be taken by RBI after taking into account technology, data privacy and other related issues . 7. It is submitted that issuing guidelines making it mandatory for banks to match the beneficiary's name in the billing details with the account holder's name before passing on credit will make digital payments inefficient and result in a large number of returns. In view of the submissions made herein above, RBI is not in favour of issuing any guidelines making it mandatory for banks to match name before passing on credit." 7. Insofar as the RBI is concerned, ld. Counsel Mr. In view of the submissions made herein above, RBI is not in favour of issuing any guidelines making it mandatory for banks to match name before passing on credit." 7. Insofar as the RBI is concerned, ld. Counsel Mr. Ramesh Babu shall obtain instructions as to whether there are any timelines in respect of feasibility of introduction of the facilities of beneficiary name lookup at the time of origination of transaction in case of RTGS, NEFT and IMPS, both in online and offline modes. Let an additional affidavit in respect of the said timelines be placed on record, if any. 8. Ld. counsels for the Plaintiffs have also brought to the notice of this Court the orders passed by the ld. single judges of this Court in Star India Pvt. Ltd. v. 7MOVIERULZ.TC & Ors. , CS (COMM) 604/2022 and Star India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. MHDTV.WORLD and Ors. , CS (COMM) 567/2022. In the said cases, orders were passed directing DoT and Meity to take action for non compliance of Court orders qua five DNRs i.e. NameCheap Inc., Dynadot, LLC, Tucows Inc., Gransy s.r.o. and, Sarek Oy. Upon the orders being passed, an application is stated to have been filed by NameCheap Inc. agreeing to give effect to the court orders passed in India. 9. The issues raised by MeitY in its status report as also the issues being considered by this Court on behalf of several IP owners and DNRs, raise various questions in respect of how to give effect to orders passed by Indian Court, especially by DNRs, who specifically take a stand that they would only be bound by orders passed by the competent Courts within their own jurisdiction. 10. Considering the stand of MeitY and the provisions of the applicable laws, the counsels may make their submissions on the next date of hearing as to the manner in which final orders can be passed in these suits so as to ensure that the orders of injunction, which are passed in respect of infringing domain names are given effect to by DNRs and all other authorities, in a manner so as to ensure that more and more consumers are not misled. 11. The written submissions on behalf of the Plaintiffs shall be compiled by Mr. Siddharth Chopra, ld. Counsel for the Plaintiff and by Mr. Banerjee, ld. Counsel on behalf of the Defendants. 11. The written submissions on behalf of the Plaintiffs shall be compiled by Mr. Siddharth Chopra, ld. Counsel for the Plaintiff and by Mr. Banerjee, ld. Counsel on behalf of the Defendants. The same shall be placed before this Court. Written submissions on behalf of the Union of India shall be filed separately by Mr. Harish Shankar, ld. CGSC. 12. List for further hearing on 26th May, 2023 at 3:00 pm. 13. List CS (COMM) 158/2022 , before the Registrar on 27th April, 2023 to enable the re-issuance of summons to the Defendant who is located in the USA. 14. List, CS (COMM) 276/2021 & 293/2021 , before the Registrar on 27th April, 2023. 15. These are part heard matters.