[This tidbit is authored by Pranav Aggarwal. Pranav is a second-year student pursuing B.A.LL.B.(Hons) at Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law, Punjab. His previous post can be accessed here.]
I have heard that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. But, the PAN card service provider- UTI Infrastructure Technology and Service Limited (UTIITSL) was definitely not flattered, and neither was the Court. On 12th January, the Bombay High Court passed a dynamic ex-parte ad-interim injunction order (pdf) restraining websites imitating as PAN Card service providers. As a quick background, the PAN (Permanent Account Number) is a universal identification key used to track the financial transactions of the holder. The application seeking the interim relief was filed by UTIITSL who has been an authorized service provider since 2003 for processing PAN and related services like issuance of documents such as Aadhar Card, Voter ID, driving license, etc.
UTIITSL contended that certain websites were using its marks and labels or representing themselves as their agents and were providing PAN card-related services, and it has reason to believe that the defendants are issuing fake PAN cards using the applicant’s confidential information. But what are these reasons? Unfortunately, the order has not elaborated upon them. Although not discussed in the order (since the suit was filed as a commercial IP suit) this activity can also attract criminal liability under forgery.
On the basis of the plaintiff’s arguments, the court passed a dynamic injunction ordering to take down the impugned domain names and websites and directing the authorities to take down other domain names/ websites as and when shared by the plaintiff. Interestingly, apart from the justifications under the copyright and trademark law, the court also considered misusing confidential personal information and jeopardy to national interest as reasons for the dynamic injunction broadening the scope of these injunctions even further. The court, recounting the importance of the PAN card, held that misuse of the authorization to issue PAN cards would be highly detrimental to the national interest. While it is true that such operations offering services related to such sensitive documents for sure are alarming, it makes one wonder what are the internal mechanisms of these bodies to ensure that such duping websites do not crop up. I mean approaching the court for a dynamic injunction cannot possibly be the only option at the disposal of these bodies, right? Also, it is unclear why even after recognizing the threat to national interest here, the court did not suo motu initiate criminal proceedings against the defendants (as done by the Delhi High Court in an unrelated matter). Lastly, one of the pressing questions that still remains is where does this leave the people who have fallen prey to this scam by the defendants. Unfortunately, the order falls short in addressing these issues.
(For more discussion on dynamic injunctions, interested readers can see here).