Trademark Use Through Publicity

Facts of the Case – Bima Sugam Trademark Case – Delhi High Court Judgment (2025)

The case revolves around the ownership and use of the term “BIMA SUGAM”, a name associated with a government-backed digital insurance marketplace initiative. The plaintiff, Bima Sugam India Federation, is a not-for-profit company incorporated under Section 8 of the Companies Act, 2013, and established under the direction of the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India (IRDAI) through the Bima Sugam (Insurance Electronic Marketplace) Regulations, 2024.

The IRDAI envisioned Bima Sugam as a unified digital marketplace for insurance services—covering policy purchase, claim settlement, and grievance redressal. The platform, as per IRDAI’s vision “Insurance for All by 2047,” was meant to democratize insurance access in India.

Soon after IRDAI’s public announcement in August 2022 of this upcoming platform, Defendant No. 1, A. Range Gowda, an insurance agent from Karnataka, registered two domain names — www.bimasugam.com and www.bimasugam.in in October 2022. Defendant No. 1 also created social media handles using the same mark, claiming to represent a firm called Bima Sugam Digital Solutions.

The plaintiff alleged that Defendant No. 1’s registration of these domain names was in bad faith, amounting to cybersquatting, since the name “Bima Sugam” was already widely known as a government initiative and associated with IRDAI. The defendant later demanded INR 50 crores as “compensation” for transferring these domains to the plaintiff, which the plaintiff claimed showed malafide intent.

Procedural Details

The plaintiff filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction restraining Defendant No. 1 from using the mark “Bima Sugam,” along with a request for a mandatory injunction directing Defendant No. 2 (the domain registrar) to transfer the domain names to the plaintiff.

An ad-interim injunction was granted on 29th May 2025, restraining Defendant No. 1 from using the mark and directing that the domain names be locked and suspended pending final decision. The present order dated 16th October 2025 addresses the plaintiff’s request for the transfer of ownership of the domain names.

Nature of Dispute

The dispute centers on three main questions:

• Who is the prior user of the mark “Bima Sugam”?
• Whether Defendant No. 1’s adoption of the name and domain was bona fide or in bad faith?
• Whether the plaintiff is entitled to transfer of the domain names at this stage of proceedings?

Detailed Reasoning and Legal Analysis

The Court observed that IRDAI had publicly announced the Bima Sugam initiative on 25th and 30th August 2022, well before the defendant’s registration of domain names in October 2022. These announcements received widespread media coverage, including reports on CNBC TV-18, and were reflected in IRDAI’s Annual Reports (2022–23 and 2023–24), recognizing Bima Sugam as a flagship public digital infrastructure.

The Bima Sugam Regulations, 2024, formally notified on 20th March 2024, defined the marketplace as a public infrastructure meant to serve consumers, insurers, and intermediaries. The plaintiff company was incorporated on 18th June 2024 to operate this platform on behalf of IRDAI.

Court Precedents

The Court relied on precedents to clarify that goodwill and use of a trademark can arise from advertising and public announcements, even before commercial launch:

• N.R. Dongre v. Whirlpool Corporation (1995 SCC OnLine Del 310)
• Radico Khaitan v. Devans Modern Breweries Ltd. (2019 SCC OnLine Del 7483)

These cases established that pre-launch publicity and preparatory acts amount to “use” of a trademark under Section 2(2)(c)(i) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. Thus, the plaintiff’s use of “Bima Sugam” through official announcements, public reports, and regulatory documents qualified as trademark use.

Defendant’s Conduct and Bad Faith

Defendant No. 1’s claim of being the “first user” since 1st October 2022 was unconvincing. He argued that “Bima Sugam” was a descriptive Hindi phrase meaning “easy insurance.” However, his trademark filings described it as distinctive—contradicting his defense.

His false trademark applications and misleading affidavits indicated bad faith and misrepresentation. When approached by the plaintiff in May 2024, he demanded INR 50 crores for transfer—showing clear intent of cybersquatting and extortion. The Court found no legitimate commercial interest based on his income records.

Key Legal Findings

The Court invoked principles from:

• Acqua Minerals Ltd. v. Pramod Borse (2001 SCC OnLine Del 444)
• Pfizer Products Inc. v. Altamash Khan (2005 SCC OnLine Del 1388)
• Eicher Ltd. v. Web Link India (2002 SCC OnLine Del 714)
• Tata Sky Ltd. v. Sachin Cody (2011 SCC OnLine Bom 2126)

The Court reaffirmed that domain name registration done to block a legitimate trademark holder amounts to bad faith. Interim mandatory injunctions are justified when delay could cause irreparable harm.

Public Interest and Balance of Convenience

The Court highlighted that Bima Sugam is not a private venture but a national digital infrastructure project aimed at the public good. Allowing a private individual to control or block its access points would harm IRDAI’s “Insurance for All by 2047” mission. Hence, the balance of convenience and irreparable injury favored the plaintiff.

Judgment and Decision

The Delhi High Court held that Bima Sugam India Federation was the prior user of the mark and that Defendant No. 1’s adoption was dishonest and in bad faith. His INR 50 crore demand confirmed cybersquatting and malafide intent.

The Court directed Defendant No. 2 (the domain registrar) to transfer the ownership of both domains to the plaintiff within two weeks, with transfer costs borne by the plaintiff. If the final trial favors Defendant No. 1, the domains would be re-transferred to him with compensation.

The Court dismissed objections on delay and jurisdiction, finding that the plaintiff established a strong prima facie case and that the balance of convenience lay in its favor.

Conclusion

This judgment reinforces crucial principles of Indian trademark and cyber law:

• Publicity and preparatory acts can constitute trademark “use.”
• Bad faith registration and cybersquatting harm both private and public interest.
• Courts can grant interim mandatory injunctions to restore rightful ownership of digital identifiers.

The decision safeguards public digital initiatives like Bima Sugam from private misuse and ensures integrity in government-backed technological frameworks.

Case Details

Disclaimer

The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.

Written By

Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi