{"id":10584,"date":"2025-10-23T10:33:51","date_gmt":"2025-10-23T10:33:51","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/?p=10584"},"modified":"2025-10-30T02:25:40","modified_gmt":"2025-10-30T02:25:40","slug":"trademark-use-through-publicity","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/trademark-use-through-publicity\/","title":{"rendered":"Trademark Use Through Publicity"},"content":{"rendered":"<h2 id=\"facts-of-the-case\">Facts of the Case &#8211; Bima Sugam Trademark Case \u2013 Delhi High Court Judgment (2025)<\/h2>\n<p>The case revolves around the ownership and use of the term <strong>\u201cBIMA SUGAM\u201d<\/strong>, a name associated with a government-backed digital insurance marketplace initiative. The plaintiff, <strong>Bima Sugam India Federation<\/strong>, is a not-for-profit company incorporated under Section 8 of the Companies Act, 2013, and established under the direction of the <strong>Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India (IRDAI)<\/strong> through the Bima Sugam (Insurance Electronic Marketplace) Regulations, 2024.<\/p><div id=\"ez-toc-container\" class=\"ez-toc-v2_0_83 counter-hierarchy ez-toc-counter ez-toc-grey ez-toc-container-direction\">\n<div class=\"ez-toc-title-container\">\n<p class=\"ez-toc-title\" style=\"cursor:inherit\">Table of Contents<\/p>\n<span class=\"ez-toc-title-toggle\"><a href=\"#\" class=\"ez-toc-pull-right ez-toc-btn ez-toc-btn-xs ez-toc-btn-default ez-toc-toggle\" aria-label=\"Toggle Table of Content\"><span class=\"ez-toc-js-icon-con\"><span class=\"\"><span class=\"eztoc-hide\" style=\"display:none;\">Toggle<\/span><span class=\"ez-toc-icon-toggle-span\"><svg style=\"fill: #0c0c0c;color:#0c0c0c\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" class=\"list-377408\" width=\"20px\" height=\"20px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" fill=\"none\"><path d=\"M6 6H4v2h2V6zm14 0H8v2h12V6zM4 11h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2zM4 16h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2z\" fill=\"currentColor\"><\/path><\/svg><svg style=\"fill: #0c0c0c;color:#0c0c0c\" class=\"arrow-unsorted-368013\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" width=\"10px\" height=\"10px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" version=\"1.2\" baseProfile=\"tiny\"><path d=\"M18.2 9.3l-6.2-6.3-6.2 6.3c-.2.2-.3.4-.3.7s.1.5.3.7c.2.2.4.3.7.3h11c.3 0 .5-.1.7-.3.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7zM5.8 14.7l6.2 6.3 6.2-6.3c.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7c-.2-.2-.4-.3-.7-.3h-11c-.3 0-.5.1-.7.3-.2.2-.3.5-.3.7s.1.5.3.7z\"\/><\/svg><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a><\/span><\/div>\n<nav><ul class='ez-toc-list ez-toc-list-level-1 ' ><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-1\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/trademark-use-through-publicity\/#Facts_of_the_Case_-_Bima_Sugam_Trademark_Case_%E2%80%93_Delhi_High_Court_Judgment_2025\" >Facts of the Case - Bima Sugam Trademark Case \u2013 Delhi High Court Judgment (2025)<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-2\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/trademark-use-through-publicity\/#Procedural_Details\" >Procedural Details<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-3\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/trademark-use-through-publicity\/#Nature_of_Dispute\" >Nature of Dispute<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-4\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/trademark-use-through-publicity\/#Detailed_Reasoning_and_Legal_Analysis\" >Detailed Reasoning and Legal Analysis<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-5\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/trademark-use-through-publicity\/#Court_Precedents\" >Court Precedents<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-6\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/trademark-use-through-publicity\/#Defendants_Conduct_and_Bad_Faith\" >Defendant\u2019s Conduct and Bad Faith<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-7\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/trademark-use-through-publicity\/#Key_Legal_Findings\" >Key Legal Findings<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-8\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/trademark-use-through-publicity\/#Public_Interest_and_Balance_of_Convenience\" >Public Interest and Balance of Convenience<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-9\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/trademark-use-through-publicity\/#Judgment_and_Decision\" >Judgment and Decision<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-10\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/trademark-use-through-publicity\/#Conclusion\" >Conclusion<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-11\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/trademark-use-through-publicity\/#Case_Details\" >Case Details<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-12\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/trademark-use-through-publicity\/#Disclaimer\" >Disclaimer<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-13\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/trademark-use-through-publicity\/#Written_By\" >Written By<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/nav><\/div>\n\n<p>The IRDAI envisioned Bima Sugam as a unified digital marketplace for insurance services\u2014covering policy purchase, claim settlement, and grievance redressal. The platform, as per IRDAI\u2019s vision \u201cInsurance for All by 2047,\u201d was meant to democratize insurance access in India.<\/p>\n<p>Soon after IRDAI\u2019s public announcement in August 2022 of this upcoming platform, <strong>Defendant No. 1, A. Range Gowda<\/strong>, an insurance agent from Karnataka, registered two domain names \u2014 <a href=\"http:\/\/www.bimasugam.com\">www.bimasugam.com<\/a> and <a href=\"http:\/\/www.bimasugam.in\">www.bimasugam.in<\/a> 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.<\/p>\n<p>The plaintiff alleged that Defendant No. 1\u2019s registration of these domain names was in bad faith, amounting to <strong>cybersquatting<\/strong>, since the name \u201cBima Sugam\u201d was already widely known as a government initiative and associated with IRDAI. The defendant later demanded INR 50 crores as \u201ccompensation\u201d for transferring these domains to the plaintiff, which the plaintiff claimed showed malafide intent.<\/p>\n<h2 id=\"procedural-details\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Procedural_Details\"><\/span>Procedural Details<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>The plaintiff filed a suit seeking a <strong>permanent injunction<\/strong> restraining Defendant No. 1 from using the mark \u201cBima Sugam,\u201d along with a request for a <strong>mandatory injunction<\/strong> directing Defendant No. 2 (the domain registrar) to transfer the domain names to the plaintiff.<\/p>\n<p>An <strong>ad-interim injunction<\/strong> 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 <strong>16th October 2025<\/strong> addresses the plaintiff\u2019s request for the transfer of ownership of the domain names.<\/p>\n<h2 id=\"nature-of-dispute\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Nature_of_Dispute\"><\/span>Nature of Dispute<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>The dispute centers on three main questions:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Who is the prior user of the mark \u201cBima Sugam\u201d?<\/li>\n<li>Whether Defendant No. 1\u2019s adoption of the name and domain was bona fide or in bad faith?<\/li>\n<li>Whether the plaintiff is entitled to transfer of the domain names at this stage of proceedings?<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2 id=\"legal-analysis\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Detailed_Reasoning_and_Legal_Analysis\"><\/span>Detailed Reasoning and Legal Analysis<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>The Court observed that IRDAI had publicly announced the Bima Sugam initiative on 25th and 30th August 2022, well before the defendant\u2019s registration of domain names in October 2022. These announcements received widespread media coverage, including reports on CNBC TV-18, and were reflected in IRDAI\u2019s Annual Reports (2022\u201323 and 2023\u201324), recognizing Bima Sugam as a flagship public digital infrastructure.<\/p>\n<p>The <strong>Bima Sugam Regulations, 2024<\/strong>, 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.<\/p>\n<h3 id=\"court-precedents\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Court_Precedents\"><\/span>Court Precedents<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>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:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><em>N.R. Dongre v. Whirlpool Corporation<\/em> (1995 SCC OnLine Del 310)<\/li>\n<li><em>Radico Khaitan v. Devans Modern Breweries Ltd.<\/em> (2019 SCC OnLine Del 7483)<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>These cases established that pre-launch publicity and preparatory acts amount to \u201cuse\u201d of a trademark under Section 2(2)(c)(i) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. Thus, the plaintiff\u2019s use of \u201cBima Sugam\u201d through official announcements, public reports, and regulatory documents qualified as trademark use.<\/p>\n<h3 id=\"bad-faith\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Defendants_Conduct_and_Bad_Faith\"><\/span>Defendant\u2019s Conduct and Bad Faith<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>Defendant No. 1\u2019s claim of being the \u201cfirst user\u201d since 1st October 2022 was unconvincing. He argued that \u201cBima Sugam\u201d was a descriptive Hindi phrase meaning \u201ceasy insurance.\u201d However, his trademark filings described it as distinctive\u2014contradicting his defense.<\/p>\n<p>His false trademark applications and misleading affidavits indicated <strong>bad faith and misrepresentation<\/strong>. When approached by the plaintiff in May 2024, he demanded INR 50 crores for transfer\u2014showing clear intent of <strong>cybersquatting and extortion<\/strong>. The Court found no legitimate commercial interest based on his income records.<\/p>\n<h3 id=\"legal-findings\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Key_Legal_Findings\"><\/span>Key Legal Findings<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>The Court invoked principles from:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><em>Acqua Minerals Ltd. v. Pramod Borse<\/em> (2001 SCC OnLine Del 444)<\/li>\n<li><em>Pfizer Products Inc. v. Altamash Khan<\/em> (2005 SCC OnLine Del 1388)<\/li>\n<li><em>Eicher Ltd. v. Web Link India<\/em> (2002 SCC OnLine Del 714)<\/li>\n<li><em>Tata Sky Ltd. v. Sachin Cody<\/em> (2011 SCC OnLine Bom 2126)<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>The Court reaffirmed that domain name registration done to block a legitimate trademark holder amounts to <strong>bad faith<\/strong>. Interim mandatory injunctions are justified when delay could cause irreparable harm.<\/p>\n<h3 id=\"public-interest\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Public_Interest_and_Balance_of_Convenience\"><\/span>Public Interest and Balance of Convenience<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>The Court highlighted that <strong>Bima Sugam<\/strong> is not a private venture but a <strong>national digital infrastructure project<\/strong> aimed at the public good. Allowing a private individual to control or block its access points would harm IRDAI\u2019s \u201cInsurance for All by 2047\u201d mission. Hence, the balance of convenience and irreparable injury favored the plaintiff.<\/p>\n<h2 id=\"judgment\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Judgment_and_Decision\"><\/span>Judgment and Decision<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>The Delhi High Court held that <strong>Bima Sugam India Federation<\/strong> was the prior user of the mark and that Defendant No. 1\u2019s adoption was dishonest and in bad faith. His INR 50 crore demand confirmed <strong>cybersquatting and malafide intent<\/strong>.<\/p>\n<table>\n<tbody>\n<tr>\n<th>Domain Names<\/th>\n<th>Action Ordered<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>www.bimasugam.com<\/td>\n<td>To be transferred to Plaintiff<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>www.bimasugam.in<\/td>\n<td>To be transferred to Plaintiff<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<p>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.<\/p>\n<p>The Court dismissed objections on delay and jurisdiction, finding that the plaintiff established a strong <strong>prima facie case<\/strong> and that the balance of convenience lay in its favor.<\/p>\n<h2 id=\"conclusion\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Conclusion\"><\/span>Conclusion<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>This judgment reinforces crucial principles of Indian <strong>trademark and cyber law<\/strong>:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Publicity and preparatory acts can constitute trademark \u201cuse.\u201d<\/li>\n<li>Bad faith registration and cybersquatting harm both private and public interest.<\/li>\n<li>Courts can grant interim mandatory injunctions to restore rightful ownership of digital identifiers.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>The decision safeguards public digital initiatives like <strong>Bima Sugam<\/strong> from private misuse and ensures integrity in government-backed technological frameworks.<\/p>\n<h2 id=\"case-details\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Case_Details\"><\/span>Case Details<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<table>\n<tbody>\n<tr>\n<th>Case Title<\/th>\n<td>Bima Sugam India Federation Vs. A. Range Gowda &amp; Others<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<th>Date of Order<\/th>\n<td>16th October, 2025<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<th>Case Number<\/th>\n<td>CS (COMM) 577\/2025<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<th>Neutral Citation<\/th>\n<td>2025:DHC:9315<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<th>Court<\/th>\n<td>High Court of Delhi at New Delhi<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<th>Coram<\/th>\n<td>Hon\u2019ble Ms. Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<h2 id=\"disclaimer\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Disclaimer\"><\/span>Disclaimer<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>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.<\/p>\n<h2 id=\"author\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Written_By\"><\/span>Written By<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p><strong>Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman<\/strong>, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Facts of the Case &#8211; Bima Sugam Trademark Case \u2013 Delhi High Court Judgment (2025) The case revolves around the ownership and use of the term \u201cBIMA SUGAM\u201d, 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<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":56,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_topic_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_reply_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"two_page_speed":[],"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"_joinchat":[],"footnotes":""},"categories":[21],"tags":[336,1199],"class_list":{"0":"post-10584","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-intellectual-property","7":"tag-delhi-high-court","8":"tag-intellectual-property-law"},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10584","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/56"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=10584"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10584\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=10584"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=10584"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=10584"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}