The Bombay High Court has considered the fact that an unsuspecting investor can be drawn into investing substantial amounts based on the contents of the infringing accounts purportedly giving guidance pertaining to the stock market and using the National Stock Exchange of India (Plaintiff’s) registered trade mark, the use of such infringing activity is liable to be restrained in larger public interest.
The Court emphasised that such a restraint cannot be construed as laying any fetter on the right of an individual to express his opinion or view or project or predict the stock market or give any financial advice however, the same cannot be purportedly under the aegis of the Plaintiff which is the likely consequence of the use of the registered trade mark.
Insofar as the registration or operation of a domain name using the trade mark “NSE” is concerned, it is well settled that the use of mark which is identical/deceptively similar to a registered trade mark as part of a domain name constitutes infringement, added the Court.
The Court therefore granted ad-interim reliefs restraining Defendant No. 1 and others acting through it from using the “NSE” mark in infringing accounts, channels, content, and domains, and directed Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 to remove or disable specified infringing accounts and channels within 36 hours. It also directed suspension and locking of the infringing domains “www.nsetrend.com”and “www.nseservice.in”, and restrained re-registration or grant of similar “NSE”-based domain names.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh observed that the present matter was materially similar to the earlier proceedings and that the previous modified regime could appropriately be applied here as well. It noted that Rule 3(1) of the Information Technology Rules requires due diligence by intermediaries and that the earlier order had already aligned the takedown timeline to 36 hours in conformity with the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021.
The Bench found from Exhibits “L” and “P” that the impugned accounts and channels used the plaintiff’s registered trade mark “NSE” with suffixes such as “India”, “India Online”, or “Insider Trade Updates”, thereby creating an impression that the content emanated from the plaintiff. On that basis, the Bench held that restraint against such use was warranted.
The Bench also rejected the submission on behalf of Defendant No. 3 that some channels were music channels or otherwise unrelated to the stock market. It held that the statutory protection under the Trade Marks Act extends to unauthorised use of the registered trade mark itself and is not dependent on whether the channel content concerns the plaintiff’s field of activity.
Thus, the Bench observed that the use of the plaintiff’s mark in accounts disseminating stock tips, projections, predictions, and financial advice created a real likelihood of the public being misled into believing that the content was genuine and originated from the plaintiff. It also treated the complaint of the duped senior citizen as substantiating the plaintiff’s apprehension of public harm.
The Bench also reaffirmed that use of a mark identical or deceptively similar to a registered trade mark as part of a domain name constitutes infringement. It held that the earlier safeguards were sufficient for intermediaries, who could still approach the Court if any takedown request fell outside the scope of infringement or likely association with the plaintiff.
Briefly, the plaintiff, National Stock Exchange of India Ltd., instituted a commercial IP action for infringement of its registered trade mark “NSE” and for passing off against unknown persons and intermediaries, alleging that fake social media accounts, channels, and domain names were being operated using the “NSE” mark so as to falsely suggest association with the plaintiff. The plaintiff is a premier market infrastructure institution and that the suit was framed as a John Doe action because the persons actually operating many of the impugned accounts were unknown.
The plaintiff contended that Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 were intermediaries whose platforms hosted fake accounts and videos using the plaintiff’s registered trade mark, while Defendant No. 4 operated the website “www.nsetrend.com”, Defendant No. 5 was the registrar connected with that domain, and Defendant No. 6 was the domain name registry for “www.nseservice.in”. The plaintiff alleged that these uses incorporated the plaintiff’s mark in account names, handles, URLs, and associated visual presentation so as to create a false impression of emanation from or association with the plaintiff.
The plaintiff further stated that during monitoring exercises in July 2025 and September 2025, it discovered multiple fake accounts on Defendant No. 2’s platform and infringing channels on Defendant No. 3’s platform that used the “NSE” mark and published content relating to stock market tips and investment inducements. The plaintiff also relied on an incident in November 2025 where a senior citizen allegedly lost substantial money after being deceived by a person falsely claiming to be associated with the plaintiff through the email/domain “nseservice.in”.
Appearances:
Senior Advocate Dr. Birendra Saraf, along with Advocates Rohan Savant, Monisha Mane Bhangale, Chandrajit Das, Amishi Sodani, and P.R. Hariharan, for the Applicant/Plaintiff
Advocates Charu Shukla, and Reeti Shetty, for the Defendant No.3
