JUDGMENT Prathiba M. Singh (Oral) 1. 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. During the hearing in the present batch of cases, it was brought to the attention of the Court that in various cases there was a mismatch between the name of the bank account holder and name given in the billing details. It was submitted before the Court that for validating a financial transaction, only the account number is matched and the name of the account holder and the prospective recipient are not matched. In view of this submission, the Court had impleaded Reserve Bank of India as Defendant No.38 in CS (COMM)- 350/2022 titled Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd. v. Amul-Franchise.in . 4. RBI had vide affidavit dated 9th February, 2023 placed its stand on record to the following effect: "10. It is submitted that Immediate Payment Service (IMPS), one of the modes of electronic fund transfer is operated by National Payments Corporation of India (NPCI). NPCI has enabled the banks to offer beneficiary account validation functionality to confirm the beneficiary account name (as per bank CBS) and account status before making the transaction . Banks need to ensure that they are equipped for providing this functionality and also necessary changes in their Bank application (net banking/mobile banking) User Interface (UI)/User Experience (UX) to enable this functionality to their customers in the transaction process flow. Unified Payments Interface (UPI) which is also operated by NPCI offers the functionality wherein the customer can verify the beneficiary UPI ID/Virtual Payment Address (VPA) from the app thus providing a layer of protection to the remitter. " 5. In view of the above stand of the RBI, the Court on 10th February, 2023 directed the RBI to seek instructions on whether RBI can issue guidelines to make it mandatory for banks to match the beneficiary's name in the billing details with the details of the account holder's name. 6. " 5. In view of the above stand of the RBI, the Court on 10th February, 2023 directed the RBI to seek instructions on whether RBI can issue guidelines to make it mandatory for banks to match the beneficiary's name in the billing details with the details of the account holder's name. 6. The stand of RBI was placed before the Court vide affidavit 27th March, 2023 which was captured in order dated 27th March, 2023. The same reads as under: "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. In terms of the affidavit which was filed by the RBI, the Court then directed the RBI to state as to whether there are any timelines for introduction of beneficiary's name look up facility in respect of non-digital payments such as RTGS, IMPS, NEFT as well. The said direction reads as under: "7. Insofar as the RBI is concerned, ld. Counsel Mr. The said direction reads as under: "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. Today, an affidavit dated 24th May, 2023 has been placed on record which has been signed by Mr. Manish Manhar, Assistant General Manager, Department of Supervision, RBI, New Delhi to the following effect: "3. That before proceeding further, it will be relevant to briefly state the backdrop under which the above reproduced directions came to be passed by this Hon'ble Court. In this regard, it is submitted that in compliance with the Order dated 10.02.2023 passed in the present suit, the answering Defendant filed one Affidavit dated 27.03.2023 wherein vide Para No. 6, it has been brought to the kind attention of this Hon'ble Court: that the originators of the transactions under the UPI ecosystem can verify the name of the account to which funds are being transferred prior to initiating and confirming such transfers. However, the said facility at present is restricted to the Digital Payment products only and the answering Defendant is exploring the feasibility for introducing the said facility in other payment products as well such as RTGS, NEFT, IMPS etc in both online and off-line modes. In view of the same, this Hon'ble Court was pleased to direct the answering Defendant to provide a timeline to introduce such facility. 4. It is submitted that the Application Programming Interface service for beneficiary name lookup will be made available to the banks participating in IMPS, NEFT and RTGS payment systems by June 2024. Thereafter, the banks can offer this service to their customers. " 9. From the above affidavit, it is clear that the stand of the RBI is that beneficiary name lookup facility would be made available even in respect of IMPS, NEFT and RTGS payments by June, 2024. Thereafter, the banks can offer this service to their customers. " 9. From the above affidavit, it is clear that the stand of the RBI is that beneficiary name lookup facility would be made available even in respect of IMPS, NEFT and RTGS payments by June, 2024. Considering this stand, it is clear that once the said facility is made operational, whenever remittances are made even through IMPS, NEFT and RTGS mode, to accounts which are opened by registrants of infringing domain names, the name of the beneficiary would become evident to the person making the remittance. At that stage, if the name of the account holder does not match with the name of the entity to whom the payment is to be made, the payment could be stopped immediately. 10. The banks shall, accordingly, implement this facility immediately upon the same being made operational by the RBI by June, 2024. 11. In view of the affidavit which has been filed, the presence of RBI would no longer be required. Accordingly, RBI is deleted as a Defendant. 12. Today, the Court is informed that insofar as Namecheap Inc., Dynadot, and Tucows are concerned they have moved applications before the IP Division in different suits that they are willing to comply with and give effect to orders passed in India as also appoint Nodal Officers. It is also submitted by ld. Counsel for the parties that insofar as the Gransy S.R.O. and Sarek OY are concerned, there has been no response. 13. Ms. Adlakha, ld. Counsel submits that Godaddy is not complying with the injunction orders relating to two domain names on the ground that there are no operational websites on the said domain names. Mr. Khan, ld. counsel for GoDaddy submits that in the injunction order passed in the said suit, i.e., CS(COMM) 324/2020, the generic term `mirror website' has been used and there is no specific domain name which has been mentioned in the order. 14. This issue shall be considered by the Court on the next date of hearing. 15. Insofar as Namecheap Inc. and Dynadot are concerned, Mr. Akshay Goel, ld. Counsel submits that the service of the suit papers, other documents and notices, etc., may be made to the Grievance Officer at the following email address: Dynadot: nixi.grievance.officer@dynadot.com Namecheap: grievance.officer@namecheap.com 16. 14. This issue shall be considered by the Court on the next date of hearing. 15. Insofar as Namecheap Inc. and Dynadot are concerned, Mr. Akshay Goel, ld. Counsel submits that the service of the suit papers, other documents and notices, etc., may be made to the Grievance Officer at the following email address: Dynadot: nixi.grievance.officer@dynadot.com Namecheap: grievance.officer@namecheap.com 16. Accordingly, the Registry shall notify all Plaintiffs who may be filing the suits and all the Plaintiffs in the present suits to serve fresh applications and suit papers in respect of these DNRs upon the Grievance Officer at the email address. 17. The Court would consider all the issues raised on behalf of the parties on the next date of hearing. 18. List CS(COMM) 317/2019, CS(COMM) 255/2020, CS(COMM) 324/2020, CS(COMM) 373/2020, CS(COMM) 95/2021 and CS(COMM) 158/2022 before Registrar on 5th July, 2023. 19. List before Court on 16th August, 2023 at 2:30 p.m. 20. These are part heard matters.