JUDGMENT Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral) 1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. 2. This Court has been considering the above matters from time to time. The present set of suits and proceedings have been filed before this Court, by a large number of trademark and brand owners, seeking reliefs against misuse of their marks / names / brands by unauthorized persons, who register such marks as part of their domain names. The primary issue that arises in these cases is that the proliferation of these fraudulent and illegal domain names has resulted in enormous damage to innocent and gullible members of the public, who have mistakenly paid large sums of money to the said website owners/domain name owners. From time to time, directions have been issued by this Court for blocking and for removal/suspension of the domain names and pulling down of the websites. The appointment of grievance officers by Domain Name Registrars (DNR) and giving effect to orders passed by this Courts and other authorities. 3. It is seen in these matters that the details for the persons registering the illegal domain are usually not available on the website. The appointment of grievance officers by Domain Name Registrars (DNR) and giving effect to orders passed by this Courts and other authorities. 3. It is seen in these matters that the details for the persons registering the illegal domain are usually not available on the website. In view of the same, vide order dated 3rd August, 2022, recommendations were to be given by MEITY after consulting various stakeholders, including the CGPTDM, DOT, NIXI, Delhi Police, etc on the following aspects: "(i) The manner in which the details of the domain name registrants, can be verified by the DNRs, at the time of registration of domain names; (ii) The manner in which the privacy protect feature and proxy servers are made available: whether it is only upon a specific registrant choosing the said option, rather than as a standard feature as part of a 'bundle'; (iii) If the owner of a well-known brand or a trademark contacts any DNR, the manner in which the data related to the registrant can be provided, without the intervention of a Court, or any governmental agency; (iv) Whether the identity of the owner of a domain name, which consists of a registered trademark or a known brand can be verified at the time of registration itself; (v) If a specific link could be provided by the CGPTDM, covering a list of well-known marks, maintained by the Registrar of the Trademarks, or declared by any Court of law, which can then be used for expedited blocking of domain names consisting of such marks; (vi) If there can be any agency that can be identified in India, such as NIXI, who can be made a repository of the data concerning the registrant, or an agency through which the data could be transmitted by the DNR, upon verification by NIXI, in case a trademark owner has a grievance against a specific domain name; (vii) If any directions are issued to the DNRs, and the same are not implemented, the manner in which the implementation of the said orders can be ensured; (viii) Since almost all, domain names are registered only after payments are made through credit card, or other online payment methods or apps, is it possible, upon request by any identified agency, to provide the information relating to the person who has made the payment, to the trademark owners. This should be discussed in the aforementioned meeting to be held on 30th August, 2022." 4. In addition, a further aspect to be considered by the MEITY and DoT as recorded in the order dated 14th September, 2022, was the issue of whether grievance officers had been appointed by the DNRs and in case of no information regarding the same, MEITY was to take steps in accordance with law. A status report detailing the steps taken by MEITY was also to be filed. The said status report reflecting the action taken by the MEITY has been placed on record. The relevant part of the same is as under: S. No. RELEVANT PARA OF THE ORDER SHEET DATED 14.09.2022 ACTION TAKEN 7. Para No. 34 Insofar as those DNRs which have appointed Grievance Officers are concerned, including Newfold Group and Google, it is made clear that they ought to function in accordance with law including the IT Rules, 2021. In such cases, Plaintiffs are permitted to make advance service in cases relating to domain names registered with the said DNRs to the Grievance Officers through the contact details of the grievance officers. It would then be expected in such cases, that the said DNRs would enter appearance or facilitate the compliance and give effect to the orders or directions passed by Courts. On 16.11.2022, an email has sent to the Jia Rong Low the Vice President, Stakeholder Engagement and Managing Director Asia Pacific ICANN regarding the appointment of Grievance Officers by ICANN accredited DNRs ICANN has also submitted its response to the MeitY. It is pertinent to mention here that, in response ICANN has not provided the details of Grievance officer of ICANN accredited DNR. ICANN has mentioned that ICANN's relationship with ICANN accredited Registrars is merely contractual. ICANN does not provide legal counsel to ICANN accredited registrars and does not coordinate their participation in, or responses to, Court directives. Accordingly, ICANN does not currently have any information with regard to the appointment of Grievance Officers by the registrars identified. Para No.35 No other DNRs have made any submissions before this Court today. MeitY is directed to look into the issue of appointment of Grievance Officers by the other DNRs who are parties in these suits. Accordingly, ICANN does not currently have any information with regard to the appointment of Grievance Officers by the registrars identified. Para No.35 No other DNRs have made any submissions before this Court today. MeitY is directed to look into the issue of appointment of Grievance Officers by the other DNRs who are parties in these suits. Para No.36 If the said DNRs have not appointed Grievance Officers, one week's time shall be given to them for making the appointments in accordance with the IT Rules, 2021. If the said compliance is not made by DNRs, MeitY is free to proceed in accordance with law against such DNRs who are offering their domain name registration, hosting and related services m India, without complying with the local laws. A status report be put up by MeitY by the next date, on this aspect including the steps taken by MeitY pursuant to the directions contained above. A copy of the Correspondence with ICANN 1s placed at Annexure - 7. On 13.11.2022, through NIXI, a notice has been circulated in the newspapers "Times of India" and "Hindustan Times" throughout the country by requesting the ICANN accredited DNRs to appoint Grievance Officer in their organization accordingly. The screenshot of the notice published newspaper is placed at Annexure -8. In addition, MeitY vide its email dated 29.12.2022 requested 'I CANN accredited DNRs for .com/.net/.org' for appointment of Grievance Officer or establishment of Grievance Redressed Mechanism by DNRs as prescribed under Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021. The same is placed at Annexure - 8A. None of the ICANN-accredited DNRs for .com/.net/.org' have responded. In persuasion of aforementioned actions from MeitY and NIXI, all twenty (20) details of Grievance Officers appointed by them. A copy of the current status of the appointment of .IN DNRs is placed at Annexure - 9. 5. The response of MEITY insofar as the issue relating to non- appointment of grievance officers is as under: S. No. ISSUE IDENTIFIED BY HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT UNDER PARA NO. 36 OF COURT RESPONSE ORDER 13.08.2022 1. If the said DNRs have not appointed Grievance Officers, one week's time shall be given to them for making the appointments in accordance with the IT Rules, 2021. 36 OF COURT RESPONSE ORDER 13.08.2022 1. If the said DNRs have not appointed Grievance Officers, one week's time shall be given to them for making the appointments in accordance with the IT Rules, 2021. If the said compliance is not made by DNRs, MeitY is free to proceed in accordance with law against such DNRs who are offering their domain name registration, hosting and related services in India, without complying with the local laws. A status report be put up by MeitY by the next date, on this aspect including the steps taken by MeitY pursuant to the directions contained above. As of today, MeitY does not have powers to take action against noncompliant domain name registrars. On the order of the Hon'ble Court, action on blocking of website and email IDs would be taken. The power of such blocking is vested with DoT through ISPs. 6. It is noticed that there are two sets of DNRs which are operating in India. The first sets of DNRs are those who offer various Global Top Level Domains (GTLDs) such as (.com), (.net) and (.org). Some such DNRs have agreed to appoint grievance officers and implement orders passed by Indian Courts/Authorities. However, a number of DNRs have either not responded to MEITY or have belatedly refused to comply with the orders passed by this Court. The second set of DNRs which operate in India are (.in) DNRs. In so far as (.in) DNRs are concerned, they are stated to have appointed Grievance Officers, as reflected in MEITY's report. 7. In addition, ld. Counsel for the Plaintiffs in some of the matters have also informed the court that a number of DNRs have completely refused to comply with the blocking orders and other directions issued by this Court, in respect of infringing domain names. 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. Bank Account Details and Matching of the Bank Account Holder's Name with Account Number and Other Details 11. On 14th September, 2022, during the hearing, it was brought to the attention of the Court that in many cases under consideration, there was a mismatch between the name of the account holder of the bank account, and the name given in the billing details. The fact that whenever payments are made into a bank account, the name of the account holder and the name of the recipient are not matched and it is only the account number which is matched, is leading to innocent consumers being duped. From the submissions made it appears that currently there is no verification done by banks qua the name of the account holder at the time of payment transaction. By way of illustration, if, bank account no. 1234 is in the name of one Mr. XXX, and as per the billing details, the payment is being made to 'YYY Pvt. Ltd', with bank account no. 1234, the said mismatch would not be taken note of by the bank and only the account number is verified for the purposes of accepting deposits. 12. 1234 is in the name of one Mr. XXX, and as per the billing details, the payment is being made to 'YYY Pvt. Ltd', with bank account no. 1234, the said mismatch would not be taken note of by the bank and only the account number is verified for the purposes of accepting deposits. 12. Taking note of this submission, on the last date of hearing, i.e., 1st December, 2022, the Court had directed RBI, impleaded as Respondent No.38 in CS (COMM)- 350/2022 titled Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd. v. Amul-Franchise.in to place its stand on record in regard to the aforementioned issue. The said direction reads: " 15. In this regard, it has also been noticed that the Reserve Bank of India, impleaded as Defendant No.38 in CS(COMM) 350/2022, has not entered appearance today. Let fresh notice be issued to the nominated counsel for the Reserve Bank of India for appearance in this matter. 16. Ld. counsel for the Plaintiffs to serve a copy of this order to the nominated counsel for RBI as well. 17. Registry to also give intimation to the nominated counsel of RBI and attach with the same, the order of this Court dated 14th September, 2022. The RBI shall also place its stand on record on the aspect of discrepancies between account holders' name and the name of the account itself and recommendations as to the way forward." 13. Today, Mr. Ramesh Babu, ld. Counsel for the RBI has handed over a copy of its affidavit dated 9th February, 2023 in compliance of the order dated 1st December, 2022. The stand of the RBI is that various guidelines in respect of RTGS and NEFT transactions have already been issued and guidelines are regularly issued from time to time in respect of mandatory compliances that are to be affected by banks at the time of opening of accounts etc. 14. Insofar as the question as to whether both the beneficiary account number and the account holder's name have to match while receiving payments or deposits, into a particular account is concerned, the stand of the RBI is as under: "6. It is most humbly submitted that the RBI has not issued any specific instruction advising banks to ensure that the name of bank account holder and the names in the billing details correspond with each other . It is most humbly submitted that the RBI has not issued any specific instruction advising banks to ensure that the name of bank account holder and the names in the billing details correspond with each other . It is however, of significance to mention here that the RBI has already issued guidelines in relation to Real Time Gross Settlement (RTGS)/National Electronic Fund Transfer (NEFT) transactions viz., 'Electronic payment products - Processing inward transactions based solely on account number information', vide Circular No. DPSS (CO) EPPD No./863/04.03.01/2010-11 dated October 14, 2010. These guidelines, as is explicitly stated therein, have been issued with respect to various electronic payment products introduced by RBI to facilitate electronic transfer of funds in a secure and efficient manner. A copy of the Circular No. DPSS (CO) EPPD No./863/04.03.01/2010-11 dated October 14, 2010 has been annexed herewith and marked as Annexure D-1. 7. That, Paras 2, 3 and 4 of the said Circular, explain the challenges with manual intervention in processing transactions. It is submitted that in Core Banking Solutions (CBS) environment, customers of a bank can be uniquely identified by their account numbers across branches. However, in terms of the extant Procedural Guidelines for RTGS / NEFT / National Electronic Clearing Services (NECS) Electronic Clearing Service (ECS) Credit, banks are generally expected to match the name and account number information of the beneficiary before affording credit to the account. In the Indian context, many different ways in which beneficiary names can be written, it becomes extremely challenging to perfectly match the name field contained in the electronic transfer instructions with the name on record in the books of the destination bank. This leads to manual intervention hindering Straight Through Processing (STP) and causing delay in credit or due return of uncredited instructions. Any manual intervention not only delays completion of the instruction but also provides scope for error and fraudulent intent. Responsibility for accurate input and successful credit lies with the remitting customers and the originating banks. The role of destination banks is limited to affording credit to beneficiary's account based on details furnished by the remitter/originating bank. In order to handle surging volumes in a limited time window, some banks use name matching software, while a few others employ a risk- based approach based on the nature and value of transfer. 8. The role of destination banks is limited to affording credit to beneficiary's account based on details furnished by the remitter/originating bank. In order to handle surging volumes in a limited time window, some banks use name matching software, while a few others employ a risk- based approach based on the nature and value of transfer. 8. It is submitted that Para 5(1) of the said Circular states that responsibility to provide correct inputs in the payment instructions, particularly the beneficiary account number, rests with the remitter/originator. While the beneficiary's name shall be compulsorily mentioned in the instruction request and carried as part of the funds transfer message, reliance will be only on the account number for the purpose of affording credit. The said instructions are applicable both for transaction requests emanating at branches and those originated through online/internet delivery channels. The name field in the message formats will, however, be a parameter to be used by the destination bank based on risk perception and/or use for post- credit checking or otherwise. 9. Further, under Para 5 of said Circular, the banks are also advised to introduce following features for enhancing safety and security of electronic payments: i. Banks should put suitable disclaimers on the funds transfer screens in the online/internet banking platform and funds transfer request forms advising customers that credit will be effected based solely on the beneficiary account number information and the beneficiary name particulars will not be used therefor. ii. Destination banks may afford credit to the beneficiary's account based on the account number as furnished by remitter/originating bank in the message/data file. The beneficiary's name details may be used for verification based on risk perception, value of transfer, nature of transaction, post-credit checking, etc. iii. Member banks shall take necessary steps to create awareness amongst their customers about the need for providing correct account number information while making payments through RTGS/NEFT/NECS/ECS Credit. In addition to the above, the beneficiary banks are advised that, in cases where it is found that credit has been afforded to a wrong account, banks need to establish a robust, transparent and quick grievance redressal mechanism to reverse such credits and set right the mistake and/or return the transaction to the originating bank. This particularly needs to function very efficiently and pro-actively till such time customers are comfortable with the new arrangements. 10. This particularly needs to function very efficiently and pro-actively till such time customers are comfortable with the new arrangements. 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. " 15. Mr. Ramesh Babu, ld. Counsel appearing for the RBI submits that without conducting KYC verification, it is not permissible for a bank to open an account. However, he submits that insofar as the beneficiary account validation functionality i.e., confirming the name of the beneficiary's account and not merely the account number is concerned, the said functionality is available with banks and it is for them to enable the same if they choose to do so. This mechanism has been introduced by NPCI. 16. Ld. counsel for the Plaintiffs, however, submits that the entire difficulty has arisen because of the fact that the banks only seek to match the account number while accepting payments through online, electronic and offline modes and do not verify the name of the beneficiary and match the same with the account holder's name. 17. In the opinion of this Court, the RBI needs to take steps in order to curb malpractices as has been seen in all these suits where amounts have been accepted by banks in the names of well-known companies but the bank account stands at the name of some third party. 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. 19. 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. 19. Let an affidavit in this regard be placed on record by the RBI within 4 weeks. Investigation of Criminal Complaints 20. A common status report on behalf of Special Cell of Delhi Police dated 8th February, 2023 has been filed by Ms. Hetu Arora Sethi, ld. ASC giving the status of investigation in all the 30 suits. The ld. ASC submits that in some cases the Delhi Police has taken cognizance, though, there were no victims who were traceable in Delhi. 21. Let investigation in all the 30 suits continue and a further status report be filed by the next date of hearing. Privacy Protection Feature 22. All the DNRs who are appearing before the Court would seek instructions and make submissions on the next date of hearing as to whether privacy protection feature masking the details of the Domain Name Registrant is being automatically offered or is the concerned Domain Name Registrant required to 'choose' the said feature by a positive act as per the policies which they are following. 23. List on 27th March, 2023 24. These are part heard matters.