Madras HC Binds Hostinger to Block ‘GALAXYHEALTH’ Domain Squatters

In Galaxy Health Insurance Company Limited Vs Hostinger Operations UAB [C.S(COMM DIV).116/2025], the Madras High Court decreed a commercial trademark suit by recording an explicit, voluntary domain-filtering undertaking from offshore domain registrar Hostinger Operations UAB. Presided over by Justice P.B. Balaji, the Commercial Division bound the Lithuanian Domain Name Registrar (DNR) to automated keyword and phonetic blocking protocols, converting Hostinger’s pre-trial commitments into an enforceable decree. This order effectively shields the statutory mark “GALAXYHEALTH” against prospective cybersquatting and anonymized digital squatters within the Indian market.

Digital Impersonation in Regulated Financial Services: Factual Matrix and Anonymized Cyber-Squatting

Looking to master Indian Trademark Law jurisprudence? Read our full Trademark Law Guide.

The dispute originated when Galaxy Health Insurance Company Limited, an enterprise operating under the regulatory oversight of the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India (IRDAI), identified unauthorized digital operations utilizing its corporate mark. Bad-faith actors registered the domain name www.galaxyhealthinsurancesolutions.com and created associated electronic mail handles, including info@galaxyhealthinsurancesolutions.com, becomeanagent@galaxyhealthinsurance.com, and careers@galaxyhealthinsurancesolutions.com. These portals were established to misrepresent affiliation with the registered insurer, collect sensitive personal data from policyholders, and solicit unauthorized commercial agency applications.

To evade legal process, the underlying domain registrants leveraged WHOIS privacy protection services, masking their physical identities, addresses, and corporate structures behind proxy shields. Faced with anonymized infringers, the plaintiff instituted commercial suit C.S(COMM DIV).116/2025 before the Commercial Division of the Madras High Court. The suit deployed established “John Doe” and “Ashok Kumar” procedural mechanisms to target the unidentified operators, while arraying Hostinger Operations UAB, an international Domain Name Registrar based in Vilnius, Lithuania, as Defendant No. 1.

Because top-level domain registrars maintain technological administrative control over domain name allocations, joining Hostinger was a critical prerequisite for unmasking the anonymous registrants and obtaining binding relief. Represented by advocate Mr. M.S. Bharath, the plaintiff pursued a dual-track strategy: compelling the offshore registrar to disclose the true identity of Defendant No. 3 while seeking permanent structural restrictions against repetitive bad-faith domain allocations targeting the “GALAXYHEALTH” corporate brand.

Intermediary Safe-Harbor versus Statutory Monopolies: Reconciling Section 79 IT Act with Trademark Enforcement

The litigation highlights the ongoing friction between the statutory rights of trademark proprietors and the conditional immunity asserted by internet intermediaries. Under Section 28 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, registration grants the proprietor exclusive rights to use the mark in relation to registered goods and services and to obtain relief against infringement under Section 29. However, offshore domain registrars routinely invoke Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, asserting safe-harbor immunity on the ground that domain registrations are processed automatically without manual human review or substantive trademark verification.

Historically, intermediaries relied on the doctrine established in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) 5 SCC 1, maintaining that liability arises only upon failing to act after receiving actual knowledge via a court order. Nevertheless, Indian jurisprudence regarding commercial brand protection has evolved significantly. In Yahoo! Inc. v. Akash Arora (1999) 19 PTC 201 (Del) and Satyam Infoway Ltd. v. Sifynet Solutions Pvt. Ltd. (2004) 6 SCC 145, the courts established that internet domain names function not merely as technical routing addresses, but as valuable business identifiers subject to passing off and trademark protection rules.

This judicial trajectory culminated in Google LLC v. DRS Logistics Pvt. Ltd. (2023) SCC OnLine Del 6799, where the Delhi High Court Division Bench clarified that Section 79 safe harbor is not an absolute shield. Intermediaries that actively facilitate or monetize trademark-infringing keyword allocations cannot claim immunity if they disregard reasonable due diligence. In the present case, Hostinger avoided prolonged jurisdictional litigation by voluntarily submitting to automated keyword filtering protocols, aligning its technical operations with domestic trademark protections.

Doctrinal Conflicts: Prior User Equities, Section 34 Exceptions, and Order XXXIX CPC Interlocutory Tests

In analyzing commercial trademark enforcement against digital squatters, courts must evaluate complex doctrinal intersections under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. While Section 28 confers exclusive statutory rights upon registration, Section 27(2) and Section 34 explicitly preserve common law passing off actions and prior user rights. In S. Syed Mohideen v. P. Sulaiman (2016) 2 SCC 683, the Supreme Court established that statutory registration under Section 28 does not override superior common law rights established through prior user under Section 34. Domain squatters often attempt to manipulate registration dates to establish pseudo-prior usage defenses against registered brand owners.

Furthermore, when mark holders seek interlocutory relief against digital squatters under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, courts must rigorously apply the classic triple test. As affirmed in Neon Laboratories Ltd. v. Medical Technologies Ltd. (2016) 2 SCC 672, establishing a prima facie case requires demonstrating consistent continuous usage, while the balance of convenience and irreparable injury factors heavily favor protecting registered proprietors against unverified, anonymized entities whose unauthorized operations threaten financial consumer trust.

Litigators must also evaluate rectification strategies under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. Where cyber-squatters attempt to file preemptive trademark applications to legitimize infringing domain operations, mark holders must initiate parallel cancellation proceedings before the High Court or the Trademarks Registry. Combining Section 57 rectification actions with commercial suits for permanent injunction ensures that bad-faith registrants cannot establish parallel trademark rights to defeat domain recovery actions.

Judicial Decree of Structural Undertakings: Mechanics of the Madras High Court Order

Justice P.B. Balaji resolved the commercial suit by converting Hostinger’s voluntary technical compliance commitments into a binding, enforceable judicial decree under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Rather than forcing the parties through an extended trial on intermediary safe-harbor boundaries, the Bench accepted the explicit written undertaking submitted by Hostinger Operations UAB via email on August 4, 2025.

Highlighting Hostinger’s explicit commitment to deploy algorithmic blocklists against prospective registrations originating from Indian business locations, the High Court recorded the registrar’s technical undertaking as a central factual finding:

We implemented measures to deny registrations of domain names containing “galaxyhealth”. Also, list of domain names phonetically similar to galaxyhealth were included into our systems and registration will be denied, if the applicant for registration has an Indian business address.

Hon’ble Mr. Justice P.B. Balaji, Madras High Court

Addressing ongoing enforcement cooperation and domain suspension workflows, the Court further incorporated Hostinger’s explicit policy statement into the final ratio of the decree:

In any case, we are committed to cooperating with third parties and legal authorities and taking actions on reported infringing domains (e.g., suspension). Therefore, if you become aware of any other active domain name potentially being registered illegally, please inform us immediately so that we can take appropriate action.

Hon’ble Mr. Justice P.B. Balaji, Madras High Court

Because Hostinger’s disclosure enabled the plaintiff to identify and successfully settle disputes with Defendant No. 3, Justice Balaji concluded that no legal impediment remained to decreeing the suit. The Court directed that Hostinger’s undertaking, along with the interlocutory order in Application No. 892 of 2026, form part and parcel of the final commercial decree, closing all pending applications without costs.

Also Read: Madras High Court Sets Aside Section 11 Refusal of ‘ELITE’ Mark

Digital Forensics, Rectification Strategy, and Corporate Due Diligence Rules for In-House Counsel

The decree in Galaxy Health Insurance offers a strategic model for intellectual property litigators and corporate General Counsel confronting digital brand impersonation. Effective brand protection requires integrating technical forensics with streamlined judicial remedies.

1. Digital Forensics and Evidentiary Proof Standards

Enforcing trademark rights against anonymized digital entities requires establishing an unbroken evidentiary chain. In-house legal teams and litigators must gather comprehensive technical documentation before initiating suit:

• WHOIS Audit Trails: Securing historical WHOIS records and passive DNS data to prove bad-faith changes in registrant details and privacy proxy usage.
• Server and IP Tracing: Capturing web server IP allocations, routing headers, and host infrastructure details to identify common hosting patterns across infringing domains.
• Commercial Forensics: Documenting electronic transaction records, GST invoices, and e-commerce buyer journeys, supported by mandatory electronic evidence certificates under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (now Section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023).

2. Dynamic Injunctions versus Voluntary Consent Decrees

While Indian courts frequently grant dynamic injunctions under the framework established in UTV Software Communication Ltd. v. 1337X.TO (2019) 259 DLT 224 to block mirror and redirect websites, obtaining voluntary registrar filtering agreements presents operational advantages. Consent decrees under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC create direct contractual and judicial obligations for registrars, bypassing operational delays associated with serving repetitive court blocking orders on internet service providers.

3. Strategic Brand Governance Guidelines for In-House Counsel

For General Counsel and Chief Risk Officers in regulated sectors, relying exclusively on post-facto litigation is insufficient. Corporate legal departments must implement comprehensive brand governance protocols:

• Registrar Escalation Agreements: Negotiate direct abuse-reporting mechanisms with major global registrars (such as Hostinger, GoDaddy, and Namecheap) to expedite administrative domain suspensions prior to formal court filings.
• Geo-Filtered Keyword Defenses: Request registrars to implement automated keyword blocks restricting domain allocations containing proprietary marks for applicants listing business addresses in high-risk jurisdictions.
• Parallel Section 57 Rectification Audits: Maintain continuous surveillance of the Trademarks Registry to file immediate Section 57 cancellation petitions against bad-faith trademark applications filed by domain squatters.
• Arbitration Integration: Evaluate the strategic speed of Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy (UDRP) and INDRP arbitrations against commercial court suits to achieve cost-effective domain transfers.

By transforming Hostinger’s voluntary technical commitment into an enforceable judicial decree, the Madras High Court demonstrated how judicial oversight can align technological intermediary compliance with statutory trademark protection, establishing a practical framework for combating digital brand infringement in India.