Bombay High Court: WhatsApp, Social Media Platforms Must Act Promptly Against Misleading Content

Recently, the renowned multinational banking and financial services corporation, “DBS Bank Ltd.”, filed a petition before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court seeking an ex-parte ad-interim injunction against unidentified perpetrators [who were impleaded as John Doe/Ashok Kumar Defendants in the proceedings].

This case dealt with the central question of whether broad, dynamic John Doe injunctions can be preemptively granted to restrain anonymous entities from infringing upon a brand's established trademark and defrauding consumers in the digital domain.  

FACTS AND BACKGROUND

In 2024, a person received calls from an unknown person claiming to be a DBS investment assistant, and through a WhatsApp URL, he was directed to a fake website, shown fake certificates, and convinced to invest 11 lakhs in a fake “DBS Securities Foreign Investment Account.”

In 2025, another victim invested about 10.2 lakhs. The fraudsters showed that his investment had become 63 lakhs. Later, he discovered it was fraud and filed a complaint before the Cyber Cell. The Court noticed that this issue had become serious as a retired police officer had lost around 8 crores through such fraud and even attempted to commit suicide after being cheated. The plaintiff was asking for temporary restraining orders to be passed against the John Doe defendants, the intermediaries who operate the social media platform, and the domain registrar responsible for the fake websites.

ISSUES

The present case, majorly dealt with the following issues:

• Whether the fake WhatsApp groups and domains amount to passing off, impersonation, and misuse of goodwill of DBS Bank’s name?
• Whether intermediaries like WhatsApp are required to act on these issues according to the IT Rules, 2021?
• Whether the intermediaries should act on these issues only after a court order or are obligated to act upon complaints by the affected parties?

JOHN DOE/ ASHOK KUMAR ORDERS

John Doe orders [referred to as Ashok Kumar orders in India] are equitable remedies issued by Courts against unknown, anonymous, or unidentifiable defendants. These orders are typically sought in cases of intellectual property infringement, where the rapid proliferation of the infringement, particularly on the internet, makes it practically impossible to identify all perpetrators before seeking judicial relief.

Further, such dynamic injunctions prevent the continuous creation of mirror websites and shield the brand's goodwill. The civil procedural framework, combined with the principles of equity, empowers the Courts to issue such sweeping orders to prevent irreparable harm and can lead to immediate domain suspensions.

In India, passing off and trademark infringement are addressed under Sections 27 and 29 of the Act. When the perpetrators are untraceable, invoking John Doe jurisprudence becomes crucial to ensuring that the statutory protection granted to registered and well-known marks is not rendered illusory by the anonymity of the internet. 

ARGUMENTS RAISED

In the present case, DBS Bank Ltd. argued that the unknown Defendants were blatantly infringing upon its registered trademarks by operating fraudulent websites and mobile applications. The Petitioner submitted that these platforms were designed to replicate the bank’s legitimate digital infrastructure, thereby deceiving unsuspecting customers into divulging sensitive financial data and login credentials. 

The Petitioner contended that due to the anonymous nature of domain name registrations and the ease of hosting platforms across multiple jurisdictions, it was impossible to identify the actual individuals behind this coordinated cyber fraud. They further submitted that without a John Doe order directing internet service providers [ISPs] and domain name registrars to block these platforms, the ongoing infringement would cause irreparable damage to the bank's reputation and result in severe monetary losses for the public.

However, there was a notable absence of identifiable defendants, which necessitated the invocation of the Court's inherent powers. The Petitioner maintained that the "DBS" mark holds immense goodwill and trust, factors that the rogue entities were exploiting to establish a false trade connection under Section 29 of the Act, which permits the protection of marks against deceptive similarity.

DECISION AND ANALYSIS

The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi decided in favour of the Petitioner and granted a dynamic John Doe injunction. The Court held that the overwhelming evidence of trademark infringement and the mala fide intent of the unknown Defendants to defraud the public justified the issuance of an ex-parte ad-interim injunction.

The Hon’ble Court emphasised that the core reasoning stemmed from the necessity to protect both the statutory rights of the trademark owner under the Act and the broader public interest. The Court directed the concerned authorities, including the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology [MeitY], domain registrars, and various ISPs, to immediately block access to the identified rogue websites and any subsequent mirror websites that might emerge.

“It is therefore, unacceptable that the intermediary can act only if there is an order of Court of competent jurisdiction in respect of a specifed group. The Rules provide for a mechanism under which upon such information being received, the intermediary can on its own act on the complaint and take corrective measure.”

The Court remarked that the Petitioner was, therefore, justified in seeking a dynamic injunction, given the fluid and evasive nature of cyber frauds. While the primary perpetrators remained anonymous, the Court concluded that holding the intermediaries accountable for blocking the infringing content was a reasonable and lawful measure to halt the ongoing financial cybercrime.

Regarding the domain names, the court recognised that fake websites that used variants of the name "DBS" were an element of the misrepresentation campaign and hence, such sites could be blocked by the domain registrar. This was considered a logical extension of the injunction directed against the fraud's digital setup.

Therefore, the Court concluded that an absolute John Doe injunction was appropriate, given that the fraudulent activities posed a direct threat to the financial security of consumers and the integrity of the banking system, and that these operations had not yet been intercepted by any Competent Authority.