Bombay High Court: In a case related to infringement of the NSE’s trade mark and passing off through impersonation on social media platforms using the registered mark “NSE”, Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J., stated that the Court’s order of 8 May 2025 already provides sufficient safeguards for intermediaries. The interim reliefs requested in this case are consistent with earlier orders that protect against infringing accounts. Accordingly, the Court granted interim relief to NSE, restraining Defendant 1 and others from misusing the mark “NSE” and directed social media platforms and YouTube were directed to remove infringing accounts or channels within 36 hours, once NSE provides evidence.
Also Read: IPR Roundup: Key High Court Judgments on Domain Name, Copyright, Trade Mark, Patents and More
Background
The NSE is India’s premier market infrastructure institution and one of the largest exchanges in the world. It is also the largest derivatives exchange globally. NSE is recognised as an institution of national importance and is classified as part of India’s critical national infrastructure by the National Critical Information Infrastructure Protection Centre. As a first-level market regulator, NSE has authority delegated by the Securities and Exchange Board of India. It oversees brokers, trading members, and listed companies, ensuring that all operations follow the required regulatory framework.
This case is filed as a John Doe action. Defendants 2 and 3 are intermediaries whose platforms are being misused by unknown persons to infringe NSE’s trade mark through fake social media accounts. These platforms have lakhs of active users in India and allow online interaction, sharing, and dissemination of information. Defendant 4 is the administrator of www.nsetrend.com, which infringes NSE’s trade mark by using the mark in its URL and copying NSE’s colour scheme to suggest a false association. Defendants 5 and 6 are the Domain Name Registrar that registered Defendant 4’s website and controls its registration, suspension, or disabling.
NSE’s submitted that this Court, by its order dated 16 July 2024, granted interim reliefs against the publication and circulation of fake videos, misleading advertisements, and acts of passing off and trade mark infringement. Later, on 8 May 2025, the Court modified the previous order, allowing intermediaries up to 36 hours to take down identified infringing content, provided NSE supplies evidence in the form of screenshots and URLs via email.
NSE submitted that several new accounts have appeared on Defendant 2’s platform, and these accounts use NSE’s trade mark to induce viewers into purchasing stocks. Screenshots of the posts were shown to the Court to demonstrate the infringing activity. In September 2025, NSE’s Cyber and Information Security team found similar infringing content on YouTube. Videos were uploaded using NSE’s trade mark to give stock tips. Defendant 3, however, failed to take adequate steps, removing only a few channels while more infringing ones continued to appear.
In November 2025, NSE received an email from a senior citizen investor who had been duped of a large sum by someone falsely claiming to represent NSE. The email originated from “nseservices.in”, which does not belong to NSE. A police complaint was filed in the cyber cell. This incident highlights the risk to the public from misuse of NSE’s trade mark. In December 2025, further websites were discovered misusing NSE’s trade mark to create a stock market ecosystem. Defendant 4 operates www.nsetrend.com, which sells market analysis and misleads the public into believing it is associated with NSE.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
Regarding the registration or operation of a domain name using the trade mark “NSE”, the Court stated that it is well settled that the use of mark which is identical/deceptively similar to a registered trade mark as part of a domain name constitutes infringement.
The Court stated that its order of 8 May 2025 already gives enough safeguards to intermediaries. The interim reliefs requested in this case are consistent with earlier orders that protect against infringing accounts. Intermediaries can always approach the Court if the NSE asks them to remove or disable an account, and they believe that the account does not actually infringe NSE’s trade mark or suggest any link to NSE. In such situations, the Court can decide based on the facts of each case.
Further, the Court also stated that the intermediaries may also contact YouTubers directly, asking them to change their accounts to remove any infringing activity. Having many followers or running a channel for a long time is not a valid defence against infringement, unless the YouTuber can prove they were a prior user before NSE.
Thus, the Court granted interim relief to NSE, and restrained Defendant 1, and anyone acting for them, from infringing or misusing the trade mark “NSE”. They cannot create or operate accounts, channels, or content that are identical or deceptively similar to NSE, nor can they misrepresent or suggest any association with NSE. Respondent 4 is restrained from using infringing domains or websites, Respondents 5 and 6 are restrained from granting registration of any domain names or websites that use “NSE” or variations of it, including prefixes or suffixes that make them appear to be linked to NSE.
Further, the Court directed social media platforms and YouTube, to remove or disable infringing accounts within 36 hours. They must also take down channels/accounts or posts misusing NSE’s trade mark or impersonating NSE officers once NSE provides evidence such as screenshots, URLs, or usernames. Further, Respondents 5 and 6 are directed to suspend and disable www.nsetrend.com within 36 hours, lock the domain to prevent transfer, and ensure it cannot be re-registered after expiry.
[National Stock Exchange of India Ltd. v. John Doe S. Ashok Kumar, 2026 SCC OnLine Bom 2516, decided on 10-4-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Plaintiff: Dr. Birendra Saraf, Senior Advocate a/w Rohan Savant, Monisha Mane Bhangale, Chandrajit Das, Amishi Sodani, P.R. Hariharan i/by Parinam Law Associates.
For the Defendants: Charu Shukla a/w Reeti Shetty
