The Delhi High Court has passed a John Doe order to safeguard the intellectual property rights of Moonshine Technology Private Limited, the parent company of the Baazi Group, a leading name in India’s online gaming industry. The court restrained unidentified defendants and domain registrants from operating rogue websites infringing the group’s trademarks.
Background
The Baazi Group, established in 2014, owns popular gaming platforms like PokerBaazi, RummyBaazi, and SportsBaazi, which operate under registered trademarks such as BAAZI, BAAZI GAMES, and BAAZI MOBILE GAMING. The plaintiff argued that these marks have gained immense goodwill, with over 3.5 lakh monthly active users and millions of social media followers.
Read Also:- Telangana High Court Acquits Co-Accused in NDPS Case: Mere Suspicion Not Enough for Conviction
The group accused unknown defendants (Defendant Nos. 1–5) of cyber-squatting and hosting illegal gambling websites under domain names like baaziadda.xyz, baazi247.in, and lotusbaazi.com. These sites allegedly redirected users to platforms offering betting services, misusing the Baazi brand to create a “false sense of legitimacy.”
Cyber-Squatting and Fraud: The rogue websites used Baazi’s trademarks to deceive users, divert traffic, and promote illegal gambling.
Collusion with Domain Registrants: Domain Name Registrants (DNRs) like GoDaddy, NameCheap, and PorkBun were accused of enabling privacy protections to mask registrant details.
Read Also:- Patna High Court Emphasizes Family Over Institutionalization for Juveniles in Conflict with Law
Harm to Reputation: The plaintiff claimed the defendants’ actions diluted its brand value and exposed users to unlawful activities.
“The defendants are reaping undue profits by usurping the plaintiff’s goodwill… their actions amount to unfair business practices.”
– Moonshine Technology’s Submission
After reviewing the evidence, Justice Mini Pushkarna concluded that the plaintiff, Moonshine Technology, had established a prima facie case. The court emphasized that any delay in granting relief would result in irreparable harm to the plaintiff. To address the issue, the court issued several key directives.
First, the court imposed restrictions on the use of infringing domains. Defendant Nos. 1–5, who are unknown registrants, were barred from accessing, modifying, or transferring 132+ domain names listed in Annexure A. Additionally, Domain Name Registrants (DNRs), identified as Defendant Nos. 6–8, were ordered to suspend access to these domains and disclose the registrants’ details within one week.
The court also mandated greater transparency from DNRs, criticizing the misuse of “privacy protect” features that obscure registrant identities. DNRs were directed to file affidavits revealing the identities of those behind the infringing domains.
In terms of compliance, the court set a strict timeline. Defendants were given four weeks to file their replies, after which the plaintiff would have two weeks to submit a rejoinder. The case is scheduled for its next hearing on July 28, 2025.
“The balance of convenience lies in favor of the plaintiff… any delay would cause irreparable loss.”
– Justice Mini Pushkarna
The court referenced its 2022 order in Dabur India Ltd. v. Ashok Kumar, which mandated blocking fraudulent domains and transparency in registrant details. It also cited Government advisories (2020–2024) prohibiting surrogate ads for offshore betting platforms, stressing stricter scrutiny of intermediaries under IT Act, 2000.
Case title: Moonshine Technology Pvt Ltd v. Ashok Kumar & Ors. (CS(COMM) 124/2025) & I.A. Nos. 3850-3854/2025)
Counsels for Plaintiff: Mr. Raj Shekhar Rao, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Subhash Bhutoria, Ms. Anuja Negi, Ms. Ayesha Khan and Ms. Sanjana Bishnoi
