The Bombay High Court has asserted that under the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, an intermediary is not entitled to insist that action against impersonating, infringing or misleading content can be taken only upon a specific court order under Rule 3(1)(d). Additionally, the intermediary is obligated to act through its grievance redressal mechanism under Rule 3(2) upon receiving a complaint with adequate identifying material, particularly in matters involving impersonation, passing off, misinformation and fraud.
The Court held that where social media groups and online content are passing off as emanating from the plaintiff by misusing its corporate name, officials’ identities and forged documents for financial fraud, interim relief can be granted directing intermediaries to remove, delete, take down or disable such profiles, groups, accounts and content within the timelines contemplated under the 2021 Rules, subject to safeguards such as the plaintiff furnishing screenshots, identifying particulars and an undertaking as specified in the order.
The Court accordingly allowed the interim application against Defendant Nos. 1, 3 and 4 and granted injunctions restraining passing off and impersonation, directed takedown of infringing social media groups and content, directed disclosure of subscriber information, and directed suspension or blocking of identified fake domain names within the prescribed period.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh observed that in substance, the plaintiff sought an injunction against identified and unidentified WhatsApp groups impersonating the plaintiff’s CEO and officials and passing off investment tips, financial advice and stock market analysis as emanating from the plaintiff. The Bench noted that such conduct could have grave consequences because the public could be induced into believing that the advice originated from a well-known banking institution.
The Bench observed that the infringing WhatsApp content not only misused the plaintiff’s trade name “DBS” and its CEO’s profile, but also used forged employee identity cards, forged SEBI registrations and a forged certificate of incorporation to secure the trust of unsuspecting victims. The Bench further noted the gravity of the matter and the societal impact if such infringing activity were permitted to continue.
The Bench examined the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 and noted that Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 were intermediaries. It observed that Rule 3(1) casts due diligence obligations on intermediaries, including making reasonable efforts to ensure that users do not host, publish, transmit or share information that infringes proprietary rights, deceives or misleads as to origin, communicates misinformation, impersonates any person, or violates applicable law.
While Defendant No. 3 relied on Rule 3(1)(d) and argued that actual knowledge arises only through a court order or a reasoned government intimation, the Bench held that this contention overlooked the grievance redressal mechanism under Rule 3(2). It observed that Rule 3(2) enables a user or victim to make a complaint to the Grievance Officer, who must acknowledge it within twenty-four hours and resolve it within seven days, and in cases involving removal requests relating to Rule 3(1)(b), act within thirty-six hours of reporting.
The Bench found it unacceptable to contend that an intermediary can act only upon an order of a competent court in respect of a specified WhatsApp group. It observed that the Rules themselves provide a mechanism under which, upon receiving such information, the intermediary can act on its own and take corrective measures. The Bench also noted that Defendant No. 3 had in fact removed certain links after they were communicated, even before a court order was passed, which showed that such corrective action was possible through the grievance mechanism.
The Bench emphasized that, in cases of fraudulent online activity, time is of essence and delayed reaction is likely to cause irreversible loss to victims. It also observed that in the present era of advanced information technology, the reach of social media platforms is vast and speedy, which underscores the need for immediate corrective action when fraudulent and infringing activity is brought to the notice of intermediaries. Even if action by WhatsApp may result in blocking entire accounts, the Bench held that the Intermediary Rules themselves require intermediaries to take all reasonable efforts to ensure that users do not disseminate information infringing rights, impersonating others or communicating misinformation.
The Bench therefore held that it was not necessary to require the plaintiff to file a fresh interim application or affidavit on a case-to-case basis for every future link identified, because the relief sought under prayer clause (c)(ii) was in consonance with the grievance redressal mechanism under the Intermediary Rules.
Briefly, plaintiff filed a commercial IP suit seeking a permanent injunction against Defendant No. 1, described as John Doe(s), for passing off, misuse and misrepresentation of the plaintiff’s corporate name “DBS Bank India Limited” or any deceptively similar name, and also sought mandatory reliefs against intermediaries and the domain registrar for takedown, disclosure and blocking of fake profiles, groups, content and websites. The interim application specifically sought interim relief against Defendant Nos. 1, 3 and 4.
The plaintiff stated that it is an unlisted public company providing banking and financial services under the DBS group in India and that it has substantial goodwill and reputation through its physical and digital network and customer base. The grievance arose from a coordinated campaign of impersonation and financial fraud by unidentified persons misusing the plaintiff’s corporate name and identities of its officials to deceive members of the public.
The plaintiff’s case that the fraudsters contacted victims through phone calls and WhatsApp groups, falsely represented themselves as plaintiff’s representatives or employees, directed victims to fraudulent websites and mobile applications, and induced investments on the basis of forged identity documents and a fake SEBI broker certificate. One complaint dated December 20, 2024 involved a victim being induced to invest about Rs. 11 lakhs in an account named “DBS Securities Foreign Investment Account”, and further complaints were received in January 2025 regarding fake websites and false investment schemes.
The plaintiff also relied on additional complaints including one from Vinay Kumar, who alleged investment of Rs. 10.20 lakhs on promises of large profits, and complaints lodged with the Cyber Cell and the National Stock Exchange regarding persons contacting the public through WhatsApp groups while claiming to be officials of the plaintiff. The WhatsApp groups used the plaintiff’s trade name “DBS”, the profile of its CEO, and forged documents including employee identity cards, a SEBI registration certificate and certificate of incorporation of the plaintiff.
Defendant No. 3, WhatsApp, did not oppose compliance with the Intermediary Rules but argued that WhatsApp messages are end-to-end encrypted, that blocking or removing an account would delete the entire content rather than only specific infringing content, and that no blanket injunction should be granted merely on the plaintiff’s intimation. It submitted that the plaintiff should identify specific groups and seek directions case by case.
Appearances:
Senior Advocate Dr. Birendra Saraf, along with Advocates Rohan Savant, Monisha Mane Bhangale, Bijal Vora, Tamanna Meghrajani, and P.R. Hariharan i/by Parinam Law Associates, for the Plaintiff
Advocates Rishabh Jaisani, Amee Rana, and Nitya Chowdhary i/by Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas, for the Defendant No.2
Senior Advocate Vivek Reddy, along with Advocates Swati Agarwal, Harti Lakhani, Shashank Mishra, Vaarish Sawlani, Vedika Rathore, Abhishek Mookherjee, Suvaroop Saha Roy, and Pival Peddireddi i/by Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas, for Defendant No.3
