---
title: "Online Trademark Infringement in India: Domain Takedowns"
description: "Online trademark infringement under Section 29 Trade Marks Act: phishing domains, marketplace clones, keyword misuse, and INDRP, UDRP, IT Rules takedowns."
url: "https://advaslam.com/writing/trademark-infringement-online-domain-phishing-indrp/"
image: "https://advaslam.com/og/writing/trademark-infringement-online-domain-phishing-indrp.png"
---

[Business, banking & IPR](https://advaslam.com/practice/business-banking-ipr/)

# Online Trademark Infringement in India: Fake Websites, Phishing Domains and How to Take Them Down

By [**Adv. K J Muhammed Aslam**](https://advaslam.com/profile/) · Advocate, Ernakulam (Bar Council of Kerala)

Published 1 September 2026

A fake website that copies a brand’s name, logo and look to sell counterfeits or steal credentials is **trademark infringement** under [Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999](https://indiacode.gov.in/handle/123456789/495962) and, where it uses a deceptive domain, a **domain-name dispute** recoverable through **INDRP** (.in) or **UDRP** (gTLDs) — and the same act is also **phishing** punishable under [Sections 66C and 66D of the IT Act, 2000](https://indiacode.gov.in/handle/123456789/496511). The removal route, since 20 February 2026, runs on a **three-hour clock** under [Rule 3(1)(d) of the IT (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 as amended on 10 February 2026](https://egazette.gov.in/WriteReadData/2026/269993.pdf), triggered by a court order or an authorised government notification.

## What counts as online trademark infringement under Section 29?

The elements of infringement under [Section 29 Trade Marks Act](https://indiacode.gov.in/handle/123456789/495962) translate directly to online conduct:

| Section 29 element | How it applies online |
| --- | --- |
| **Registered mark** | The plaintiff holds a registered trademark — word, device, shape, sound or combination — capable of distinguishing goods or services (Section 2(1)(zb)) |
| **Identical or deceptively similar mark** | The fake site uses the same mark or a mark likely to deceive or cause confusion (Section 2(1)(h)) — for example, hdfcbank-login.com, amaz0n-deals.in, or a cloned logo and colour scheme |
| **In the course of trade, without authorisation** | Operating a site, listing, advertisement, social handle or domain that offers goods or services or collects data under the mark, without the proprietor’s licence |
| **For identical or similar goods or services, with likelihood of confusion or association** | The classic case — counterfeits or lookalike services of the same type — but also Section 29(4): a well-known mark is protected even for **dissimilar** goods or services where use without due cause takes **unfair advantage** of or is **detrimental to** the distinctive character or repute of the mark |
| **Modes that expressly include online use** | Affixing to goods or packaging, offering for sale, **advertising** (Section 29(6), 29(8)), **import/export**, use as a **trade or corporate name** (Section 29(5)), and use on business papers and in **advertising** — all of which cover domain names, marketplace listings, sponsored ads and social commerce |

Two extensions courts routinely apply online:

-   **Domain name as trademark.** Since Yahoo! Inc. v. Akash Arora ((1999) 19 PTC 201 (Del)) and [Satyam Infoway Ltd v. Siffynet Solutions (2004) 6 SCC 145](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1630167/), a domain name that incorporates a mark functions as a trademark. A deceptively similar domain that diverts customers is not merely a technical address — it is trademark use.
-   **Keyword and sponsored-ad misuse.** Bidding on a competitor’s mark as a keyword, or using it in sponsored listings in a manner that creates confusion, has been treated as trademark use in advertising under Section 29, with recent High Court jurisprudence examining marketplace and search-algorithm facilitation — now increasingly described as e-infringement through platform architecture.

> **Law vs interpretation:** Section 29 sets the statutory test (registered mark, deceptive similarity, course of trade, likelihood of confusion). Whether a specific domain, listing or keyword bid creates that likelihood is interpretation by courts on the facts — including the Delhi High Court’s current reference to a Larger Bench (Hindustan Unilever v. Kwick Living, 2026) on territorial jurisdiction for online trademark disputes, which does not change the substantive infringement test but affects where suit can be filed.

## How does a phishing domain combine trademark and cybercrime?

A phishing clone — for example, a fake KYC page for a Kerala cooperative bank — is rarely just a trademark case. The same page typically violates both regimes at once:

-   **Trade Marks Act — Section 29 infringement and Section 27(2) passing off** for the brand misuse.
-   **IT Act — Section 66C (identity theft)** for fraudulent use of the brand’s identity feature and **Section 66D (cheating by personation using a computer resource)** for pretending to be the brand through a computer resource. Each carries up to three years and fine up to one lakh rupees.
-   **BNS — Section 318(4) (cheating), Section 319(2) (cheating by personation), Section 308 (extortion) where payment is extracted under threat**, and Section 336 (forgery of electronic record) where fake documents are generated.

A Kerala business that treats the phishing page as only an IT support ticket and not as an IP enforcement matter leaves the infringement remedy — injunction, damages, domain transfer and platform blocking — unused. Both tracks should be pursued together: a criminal complaint for investigation and a civil/domain action for removal and recovery.

## What are the practical takedown and recovery routes?

### Route 1 — INDRP for .in domains, UDRP for gTLDs

| Forum | Domains | What the complainant must prove | Remedy | Typical timeline |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| **INDRP** (NIXI, under the .IN Registry) | .in, .भारत, and Indian ccTLDs | (i) Domain identical or confusingly similar to a mark in which complainant has rights, (ii) registrant has no rights or legitimate interests, (iii) domain registered or used in bad faith, or for an illegal/unlawful purpose (clause 4(c)) | Transfer or cancellation of the domain | 2 to 3 months (practitioner estimate), decided on papers |
| **UDRP** (WIPO and other ICANN providers) | .com, .net, .org and other gTLDs | Same three-element structure as INDRP (ICANN UDRP para 4(a); in UDRP the bad-faith element is conjunctive — registered and used in bad faith) | Transfer or cancellation | 2 to 3 months |

INDRP is cheaper than UDRP and is the natural route for phishing domains targeting Indian consumers with .in lookalikes. Evidence should include the trademark registration certificate, screenshots of the infringing site showing the mark as used, WHOIS, and any customer complaints or credential-theft reports. Where WHOIS is privacy-masked, the INDRP provider can direct the registrar to disclose the underlying registrant.

### Route 2 — Intermediary takedown under Rule 3(1)(d) — three hours on actual knowledge

Under [Rule 3(1)(d) IT Rules as amended 10 February 2026](https://egazette.gov.in/WriteReadData/2026/269993.pdf) (in force 20 February 2026), an intermediary that receives **actual knowledge** through a **court order** or a **notification from the appropriate government or its authorised agency** must remove or disable access to unlawful information — which includes trademark-infringing and phishing content — within **three hours** (down from 36 hours). Sensitive complaints involving impersonation or non-consensual imagery go faster — within two hours.

For brand owners without a court order, the **grievance mechanism under Rule 3(2)** is the parallel channel: every intermediary must appoint a Resident Grievance Officer, acknowledge complaints within 24 hours, and **resolve them within seven days** (down from 15 days), with a **36-hour** track for unlawful-content grievances and a **two-hour** track for nudity and morphed imagery. In practice, file both: a Rule 3(2) grievance with specific URLs and proof of registration, and — where the phishing is active — a police complaint that can generate the government notification that triggers the three-hour Rule 3(1)(d) clock. The Karnataka High Court’s 2025 decision in X Corp v. Union of India, upholding the Sahyog portal as a Section 79(3)(b) takedown route (Karnataka HC, 24 September 2025), is part of this ecosystem.

### Route 3 — Civil injunction including Dynamic+ orders

Where phishing is not a single domain but a network of rotating mirrors — a pattern the Delhi High Court addressed in [Dabur India Ltd v. Ashok Kumar (2025:DHC:11862, pronounced 24 December 2025)](https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/showFileJudgment/PMS24122025SC1352022_193906.pdf) — the remedy that has matured since [UTV Software v. 1337X (Delhi HC, 2019)](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/42620136/) and [Universal City Studios v. Dotmovies.baby (Delhi HC, 2023)](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/120572287/) is the **Dynamic+ and Dynamic++ injunction**: an order that binds ISPs, DoT and MeitY to block not only named sites but their future mirrors and redirects in real time, without a fresh suit for each new domain. Deployed in the December 2025 Warner Bros. order and the 2026 JioStar IPL order for copyright, the same architecture is sought in trademark phishing where the defendant rotates domains to evade blocking. Courts also increasingly direct registrars to lock and suspend infringing domains within 72 hours and to disclose registrant data in sealed cover.

### Route 4 — Criminal complaint

File at [cybercrime.gov.in](https://cybercrime.gov.in) and at the district Cyber Police Station under Sections 66C and 66D IT Act read with Sections 318, 319 and 336 BNS. The complaint should annex the trademark certificate, the phishing URLs, screenshots with URLs and timestamps preserved for [Section 63 BSA certification](https://advaslam.com/writing/electronic-evidence-bsa-section-63-certificate-guide/), and the INDRP or platform grievance reference where already filed. Under Section 78 IT Act, investigation of Sections 66C and 66D is by an officer of Inspector rank or above.

## Can a Kerala business handle a cross-border infringer?

Often, but with planning. A large share of phishing infrastructure is hosted outside India, uses privacy-masked WHOIS, and accepts payment through foreign gateways. Three points matter:

-   **Jurisdiction for online infringement.** The Delhi High Court’s 2026 reference to a Larger Bench in [Hindustan Unilever v. Kwick Living (CS(COMM) 904/2026, reference order dated 25 August 2026)](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/54794195/) — whether IP suits are governed solely by Section 20 CPC or by Section 134 Trade Marks Act / Section 62 Copyright Act, and what purposeful-availment test applies for online accessibility — means forum choice should be pleaded carefully. For a Kerala plaintiff, the cause of action where the brand is used to target Kerala consumers and where confusion occurs in Kerala is part of the jurisdictional pleading, but the evolving Larger Bench guidance should be checked before filing.
-   **Cross-border takedown.** Rule 3(1)(d) and grievance duties apply to intermediaries that provide services to users in India, even without a physical presence in India. Foreign-hosted phishing domains can still be addressed through INDRP (where the domain is .in), UDRP, and registrar and hosting-provider abuse channels, alongside the Indian injunction and criminal complaint.
-   **Evidence from outside India.** Foreign server logs and registrar data that are electronic records will need to satisfy [Section 63 BSA](https://advaslam.com/writing/electronic-evidence-bsa-section-63-certificate-guide/) if tendered in an Indian court — which means planning for a certificate with device particulars, hash and dual signatures rather than relying on forwarded screenshots alone.

## Primary sources

-   [Trade Marks Act, 1999 — India Code](https://indiacode.gov.in/handle/123456789/495962) (Sections 2(1)(h), 2(1)(zb), 27(2), 29, 134)
-   [Information Technology Act, 2000 — India Code](https://indiacode.gov.in/handle/123456789/496511) (Sections 66C, 66D, 78, 79)
-   [Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — India Code](https://indiacode.gov.in/handle/123456789/496548) (Sections 318, 319, 336)
-   [IT (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 as amended 10 February 2026 — Gazette of India, G.S.R. 120(E)](https://egazette.gov.in/WriteReadData/2026/269993.pdf) (Rules 3(1)(d), 3(2), 4)
-   Yahoo! Inc. v. Akash Arora ((1999) 19 PTC 201 (Del)); [Satyam Infoway Ltd v. Siffynet Solutions (2004) 6 SCC 145](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1630167/)
-   [INDRP Policy and Rules of Procedure — NIXI (.IN Registry)](https://www.registry.in/domaindisputeresolution) and [UDRP Rules — ICANN/WIPO](https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/guide/)
-   [Dabur India Ltd v. Ashok Kumar (2025:DHC:11862)](https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/showFileJudgment/PMS24122025SC1352022_193906.pdf) on dynamic injunctions and registrar disclosure

FAQ

## Common questions

**Is a fake website using my brand name trademark infringement under Section 29?**

Yes, where the use is in the course of trade without authorisation and the mark is identical or deceptively similar for identical or similar goods or services such that confusion or association is likely. Section 29(1) to (9) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 covers affixing to goods, packaging, import/export, advertising and use as a trade or corporate name. A phishing clone that copies a registered mark to sell counterfeits or collect credentials is classic infringement, and even well-known marks are protected for dissimilar goods under Section 29(4) where unfair advantage or dilution is shown.

**Can I get a phishing .in domain taken down through INDRP?**

Yes. For .in and .भारत domains, the .IN Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (INDRP) administered by NIXI is the dedicated route, modelled on the UDRP. The complainant must show the domain is identical or confusingly similar to a mark in which it has rights, the registrant has no rights or legitimate interests, and the domain was registered or used either in bad faith or for an illegal/unlawful purpose (registry.in, INDRP clause 4(c)). INDRP is decided on papers, and practitioners estimate a two-to-three-month timeline; it can order transfer or cancellation. For .com and other gTLDs, the UDRP through WIPO applies.

**Can I force a platform or intermediary to remove a fake listing using my trademark?**

Yes, via two parallel duties. Under Rule 3(1)(d) of the IT (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 as amended on 10 February 2026, an intermediary that receives actual knowledge through a court order or a notification from the appropriate government or its authorised agency must remove or disable access to unlawful information — including trademark-infringing and phishing content — within three hours. Separately, every platform's grievance mechanism under Rule 3(2) must resolve complaints within seven days, and within two hours for sensitive categories that overlap where phishing involves impersonation.

**Is trademark infringement online still infringement if the goods are never delivered and it is just a phishing page to steal OTPs?**

Yes. Section 29 is not limited to completed sales of counterfeit goods. Use of an identical or deceptively similar mark in the course of trade to deceive — including a phishing page that collects credentials under a cloned brand — is use for the purpose of infringement, and it also attracts Section 66C (identity theft) and Section 66D (cheating by personation) of the IT Act and Sections 318 and 319 of the BNS. The civil infringement and the cybercrime can be pursued together.

**Do I need a registered trademark to act against a fake website?**

Registration helps materially — it gives the Section 29 infringement action and the prima facie title that supports interim injunctions and INDRP/UDRP complaints — but an unregistered mark can be protected through passing off under Section 27(2) of the Trade Marks Act and through Sections 66C/66D of the IT Act where phishing is involved. Registration is, however, the position of strength for every enforcement route.

**A note on this article.** It is general legal information, not legal advice. The law may have changed since the date shown; before acting on anything here, take advice on your specific situation from an advocate of your choice.

## Related guides

-   [Online IPR Takedown — Kerala Information Note](https://advaslam.com/guides/ipr-online-takedown-kerala-information/)

[All procedure guides →](https://advaslam.com/guides/)

Keep reading

Business, banking & IPR

### Can You Patent Software and AI in India? Section 3(k) and the CRI Guidelines 2025 Explained

Section 3(k) Patents Act excludes computer programmes per se, not all software. The technical effect and contribution test under the CRI Guidelines 2025.

1 Sept 2026

[Can You Patent Software and AI in India? Section 3(k) and the CRI Guidelines 2025 Explained](https://advaslam.com/writing/patent-computer-related-inventions-cri-guidelines-2025/)

Business, banking & IPR

### Software Copyright for Kerala Startups: How Your Code Is Protected and How Founders Lose It

Software is a literary work under Section 2(o) Copyright Act, 1957. What is protected, Section 48 registration, source code deposit and assignment mistakes.

1 Sept 2026

[Software Copyright for Kerala Startups: How Your Code Is Protected and How Founders Lose It](https://advaslam.com/writing/software-copyright-startup-kerala-guide/)

Contact

[WhatsApp](https://wa.me/919497240215?text=Hello%2C%20I%20found%20advaslam.com%20and%20would%20like%20to%20discuss%20a%20matter.) [contact@advaslam.com](mailto:contact@advaslam.com) [+91 94972 40215](tel:+919497240215)

3rd Floor, Lalan Towers (KGL Builders), Vanchi Square, High Court Junction, Ernakulam, Kerala 682031 · Monday – Saturday, 10:00 – 18:30 (by appointment)

```json
{"@context":"https://schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https://advaslam.com/#website","url":"https://advaslam.com","name":"Adv. K J Muhammed Aslam","alternateName":"advaslam.com","publisher":{"@id":"https://advaslam.com/#person"},"inLanguage":"en-IN"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https://advaslam.com/#person","name":"K J Muhammed Aslam","alternateName":["Adv. K J Muhammed Aslam","Advocate K J Muhammed Aslam","Muhammed Aslam K J","Adv. Aslam"],"honorificPrefix":"Adv.","jobTitle":"Advocate","description":"Advocate enrolled with the Bar Council of Kerala, practising from High Court Junction, Ernakulam: cyber and technology law, data protection (DPDP), business, banking and IPR, and litigation before the High Court of Kerala and the courts at Ernakulam.","url":"https://advaslam.com/profile/","image":"https://advaslam.com/og.png","telephone":"+919497240215","email":"contact@advaslam.com","address":{"@type":"PostalAddress","streetAddress":"3rd Floor, Lalan Towers (KGL Builders), Vanchi Square, High Court Junction","addressLocality":"Ernakulam","addressRegion":"Kerala","postalCode":"682031","addressCountry":"IN"},"alumniOf":{"@type":"CollegeOrUniversity","name":"Bharata Mata School of Legal Studies"},"memberOf":[{"@type":"Organization","name":"Bar Council of Kerala","url":"https://barcouncilkerala.org/lawyer-registry-list"},{"@type":"Organization","name":"Kerala High Court Advocates' Association","url":"https://khcaa.com/"}],"identifier":[{"@type":"PropertyValue","propertyID":"Bar Council of Kerala Enrolment No.","value":"K/001823/2026"},{"@type":"PropertyValue","propertyID":"KHCAA Membership No.","value":"OAJ 358"}],"knowsAbout":["Information Technology Act 2000","Cyber crime law","Technology law and technology contracts","Digital Personal Data Protection Act 2023","DPDP compliance","Data protection and privacy law","Business and commercial law","Contract drafting and negotiation","Banking and finance law","Negotiable Instruments Act cheque dishonour","SARFAESI Act","Intellectual property law","Copyright and trademark law","Patent infringement","GST and income-tax law","Blockchain and cryptocurrency technology","Web3 wallets and NFTs","Drone regulation and DigitalSky framework","Writ petitions under Article 226","Criminal law","Civil and consumer litigation","Family and succession law","Service and labour law","Legal drafting","Mediation and dispute resolution"],"knowsLanguage":["en","ml"],"workLocation":{"@id":"https://advaslam.com/#practice"},"hasCredential":[{"@type":"EducationalOccupationalCredential","credentialCategory":"Enrolment as an advocate","identifier":"K/001823/2026","recognizedBy":{"@type":"Organization","name":"Bar Council of Kerala"},"description":"Enrolled as an advocate with the Bar Council of Kerala (K/001823/2026), 2026"},{"@type":"EducationalOccupationalCredential","credentialCategory":"degree","educationalLevel":"Bachelor","recognizedBy":{"@type":"CollegeOrUniversity","name":"Bharata Mata School of Legal Studies"},"description":"BBA LLB (Hons.), Bharata Mata School of Legal Studies (2025)"},{"@type":"EducationalOccupationalCredential","credentialCategory":"Remote Pilot Certificate","recognizedBy":{"@type":"Organization","name":"Directorate General of Civil Aviation, India"},"description":"DGCA Remote Pilot Certificate, issued 2022"}],"subjectOf":[{"@type":"CreativeWork","name":"Govind Babu v. State of Kerala (Crl.M.C. No. 5640 of 2026, 2026:KER:69496)","url":"https://indiankanoon.org/doc/151180872/","datePublished":"2026-09-10","publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"High Court of Kerala"}},{"@type":"CreativeWork","name":"Viji Sagar v. State of Kerala (Crl.M.C. No. 1603 of 2026, 2026:KER:20803)","url":"https://indiankanoon.org/doc/193042273/","datePublished":"2026-03-09","publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"High Court of Kerala"}},{"@type":"CreativeWork","name":"Anjana v. Manoharan A.P. (C.R.P. No. 442 of 2025, 2026:KER:10054)","url":"https://indiankanoon.org/doc/68585852/","datePublished":"2026-02-05","publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"High Court of Kerala"}}],"sameAs":["https://www.linkedin.com/in/azlubro","https://portal.khcaa.com/advocate?id=10480","https://lexosys.com"]},{"@type":"LegalService","@id":"https://advaslam.com/#practice","name":"Adv. K J Muhammed Aslam — Advocate, Ernakulam","url":"https://advaslam.com","image":"https://advaslam.com/og.png","telephone":"+919497240215","email":"contact@advaslam.com","address":{"@type":"PostalAddress","streetAddress":"3rd Floor, Lalan Towers (KGL Builders), Vanchi Square, High Court Junction","addressLocality":"Ernakulam","addressRegion":"Kerala","postalCode":"682031","addressCountry":"IN"},"geo":{"@type":"GeoCoordinates","latitude":9.9889,"longitude":76.2748},"hasMap":"https://www.google.com/maps/search/?api=1&query=Lalan+Towers+High+Court+Junction+Ernakulam","areaServed":[{"@type":"City","name":"Ernakulam"},{"@type":"City","name":"Kochi"},{"@type":"State","name":"Kerala"},{"@type":"Country","name":"India"}],"openingHoursSpecification":{"@type":"OpeningHoursSpecification","dayOfWeek":["Monday","Tuesday","Wednesday","Thursday","Friday","Saturday"],"opens":"10:00","closes":"18:30"},"founder":{"@id":"https://advaslam.com/#person"},"knowsAbout":["Cyber crime and IT Act matters","Data protection and DPDP Act compliance","Business, banking, intellectual property and tax","Legal drafting","Criminal law: bail, quash and appeals","Writ petitions before the High Court of Kerala","Civil, property and consumer matters","Family and succession matters","Service and labour matters"]},{"@type":"BlogPosting","@id":"https://advaslam.com/writing/trademark-infringement-online-domain-phishing-indrp/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https://advaslam.com/#website"},"headline":"Online Trademark Infringement in India: Fake Websites, Phishing Domains and How to Take Them Down","description":"Online trademark infringement under Section 29 Trade Marks Act: phishing domains, marketplace clones, keyword misuse, and INDRP, UDRP, IT Rules takedowns.","url":"https://advaslam.com/writing/trademark-infringement-online-domain-phishing-indrp/","mainEntityOfPage":"https://advaslam.com/writing/trademark-infringement-online-domain-phishing-indrp/","datePublished":"2026-09-01T00:00:00.000Z","dateModified":"2026-09-01T00:00:00.000Z","keywords":"trademark infringement online India, Section 29 Trade Marks Act infringement, phishing domain takedown India, INDRP domain dispute, fake website trademark infringement, trademark keyword misuse India","inLanguage":"en-IN","author":{"@id":"https://advaslam.com/#person"},"publisher":{"@id":"https://advaslam.com/#person"},"image":"https://advaslam.com/og/writing/trademark-infringement-online-domain-phishing-indrp.png","about":{"@type":"Service","@id":"https://advaslam.com/practice/business-banking-ipr/#service","name":"Business, banking & IPR","url":"https://advaslam.com/practice/business-banking-ipr/","provider":{"@id":"https://advaslam.com/#practice"}}},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https://advaslam.com/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Articles","item":"https://advaslam.com/writing/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":3,"name":"Online Trademark Infringement in India: Fake Websites, Phishing Domains and How to Take Them Down","item":"https://advaslam.com/writing/trademark-infringement-online-domain-phishing-indrp/"}]},{"@type":"FAQPage","mainEntity":[{"@type":"Question","name":"Is a fake website using my brand name trademark infringement under Section 29?","acceptedAnswer":{"@type":"Answer","text":"Yes, where the use is in the course of trade without authorisation and the mark is identical or deceptively similar for identical or similar goods or services such that confusion or association is likely. Section 29(1) to (9) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 covers affixing to goods, packaging, import/export, advertising and use as a trade or corporate name. A phishing clone that copies a registered mark to sell counterfeits or collect credentials is classic infringement, and even well-known marks are protected for dissimilar goods under Section 29(4) where unfair advantage or dilution is shown."}},{"@type":"Question","name":"Can I get a phishing .in domain taken down through INDRP?","acceptedAnswer":{"@type":"Answer","text":"Yes. For .in and .भारत domains, the .IN Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (INDRP) administered by NIXI is the dedicated route, modelled on the UDRP. The complainant must show the domain is identical or confusingly similar to a mark in which it has rights, the registrant has no rights or legitimate interests, and the domain was registered or used either in bad faith or for an illegal/unlawful purpose (registry.in, INDRP clause 4(c)). INDRP is decided on papers, and practitioners estimate a two-to-three-month timeline; it can order transfer or cancellation. For .com and other gTLDs, the UDRP through WIPO applies."}},{"@type":"Question","name":"Can I force a platform or intermediary to remove a fake listing using my trademark?","acceptedAnswer":{"@type":"Answer","text":"Yes, via two parallel duties. Under Rule 3(1)(d) of the IT (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 as amended on 10 February 2026, an intermediary that receives actual knowledge through a court order or a notification from the appropriate government or its authorised agency must remove or disable access to unlawful information — including trademark-infringing and phishing content — within three hours. Separately, every platform's grievance mechanism under Rule 3(2) must resolve complaints within seven days, and within two hours for sensitive categories that overlap where phishing involves impersonation."}},{"@type":"Question","name":"Is trademark infringement online still infringement if the goods are never delivered and it is just a phishing page to steal OTPs?","acceptedAnswer":{"@type":"Answer","text":"Yes. Section 29 is not limited to completed sales of counterfeit goods. Use of an identical or deceptively similar mark in the course of trade to deceive — including a phishing page that collects credentials under a cloned brand — is use for the purpose of infringement, and it also attracts Section 66C (identity theft) and Section 66D (cheating by personation) of the IT Act and Sections 318 and 319 of the BNS. The civil infringement and the cybercrime can be pursued together."}},{"@type":"Question","name":"Do I need a registered trademark to act against a fake website?","acceptedAnswer":{"@type":"Answer","text":"Registration helps materially — it gives the Section 29 infringement action and the prima facie title that supports interim injunctions and INDRP/UDRP complaints — but an unregistered mark can be protected through passing off under Section 27(2) of the Trade Marks Act and through Sections 66C/66D of the IT Act where phishing is involved. Registration is, however, the position of strength for every enforcement route."}}]}]}
```