Fake Website Using Your Brand Name: Legal Remedies in India

By Advocate Panchanand Shaw, Bar Council of West Bengal · Published 4 Nov 2026 · Cyber law

Viacom 18 v IYSERT belongs to the line of suits in which a brand sues an anonymous website that uses its name or content. The orders in that line are interim injunctions built on impersonation provisions of the IT Act and BNS, plus the conditional safe harbour for intermediaries under section 79.

Suits of this kind belong to a category of litigation that has grown quickly in India: a broadcaster or brand owner goes to court because a website is using its name, marks or content without authority. These suits are almost always filed as interim-injunction actions against defendants who are either anonymous or based outside India, and the orders that follow are procedural in nature. They restrain a website, direct domain registrars to lock domains, and direct internet service providers to block access while the suit continues.

That distinction matters to anyone reading about the case. The question a reader usually has is simpler: if a fake website copies my business, my name or my content, what can a court actually do, and what can it not do? This article sets out the machinery that governs those suits, the statutory provisions that carry them, and the practical limits that brands and ordinary victims both run into.

What a suit of this kind is really about

A brand-name website that is not the brand's own is not a single wrong. It is usually several wrongs at once. The site may copy the look and feel of the original, which is a passing-off and infringement issue. It may present itself as the company, which is impersonation. It may stream or sell copyrighted material, which is a content issue. It may collect money from people who believe they are dealing with the real business, which is cheating. Indian courts have treated these as separate causes of action that can be stacked in one suit.

In this line of litigation the orders reported are interim, ex parte injunctions granted on a prima facie view. A reader should verify the current position of any specific suit on the court record rather than treat an interim order as a final holding on the law.

The practical difficulty is that the wrongdoer is often described in the plaint by a website or a domain name, with the human behind it unknown. Courts deal with this by allowing suits against defendants described as the website and its operators, and by joining the domain registrar and the internet service providers as parties so that an order can be enforced against someone who is actually within reach.

The first track: impersonation and identity offences

Cheating by personation through a computer resource

Section 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2000 punishes cheating by personation using a computer resource or communication device. This is the provision that fits a fake website which takes bookings, deposits or payments while pretending to be an established business. The corresponding general offence is cheating under section 318 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and where property is dishonestly obtained the aggravated form in section 318(4) applies.

Identity theft and unauthorised access

Section 66C of the IT Act deals with the fraudulent or dishonest use of another person's electronic signature, password or other unique identification feature. Section 66 covers computer-related offences generally. Where a defendant has used a company's login credentials, or manufactured documents that carry its signature, sections 336, 338 and 340 of the BNS, 2023, which deal with forgery and forgery for the purpose of cheating, come into play.

The second track: content and reputation

Where the complaint is about material rather than money, the track changes. Obscene or sexually explicit publication falls under sections 67, 67A and 67B of the IT Act. False statements that damage the reputation of a person or a business engage defamation, now section 356 of the BNS, 2023. Before the new criminal codes took effect in July 2024, the same conduct was tried under sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code, and that older law still applies to conduct that pre-dates the change.

Trademark and copyright claims run alongside the criminal provisions, but they are civil in character. Their advantage is speed: a court can grant an injunction relatively early, without the higher standard of proof that a criminal conviction requires. Their limitation is reach. An injunction is only as good as the ability to enforce it against a defendant who may not be within the jurisdiction.

What a court can order	What a court cannot easily do
Restrain the website from using the name, marks or content	Identify a defendant who has hidden behind a privacy shield
Direct domain registrars to lock or suspend a domain	Recover money from an account already emptied and moved
Direct ISPs and telecom providers to block access	Enforce the order directly against a registrar outside India
Direct disclosure of registrant details already on record	Guarantee that mirror or redirect sites will not appear

Intermediary liability and section 79

A hosting provider, a search engine or a social platform is an intermediary. Section 79 of the IT Act gives an intermediary a safe harbour: it is not liable for third-party content it merely hosts, provided it has not initiated the transmission, does not select the receiver, and does not modify the content. That protection is conditional. An intermediary that fails to observe due diligence, or that ignores a court order or a valid takedown notice, can lose the shield and face liability itself.

The condition is important in both directions. A platform is not under a general duty to hunt for infringing content before anyone complains. Its duty is triggered by actual knowledge, which in practice means a complaint or a court order. That is why the wording and delivery of the complaint matter, and why a vague email to a generic support address is much weaker than a notice to the designated grievance officer under the IT Rules, 2021.

The IT Rules, 2021 give that condition substance. They require an intermediary to publish rules, appoint a grievance officer, and act on complaints about unlawful information, generally within thirty-six hours of receiving a complaint from the affected person or a competent authority. That is why a platform complaint is not a formality: it is often the fastest way to remove a fake profile or an infringing listing, and it creates a record that the intermediary was told and did or did not act.

What a brand or a victim can actually do

Document the impostor before it changes. Capture the full URL, page text, contact details, payment identifiers and the date and time of each capture. Screenshots with visible timestamps are more useful than clean ones.
Write to the platform or host. Use the grievance officer route under the IT Rules, 2021 and keep proof of delivery. Ask for the specific removal you want, not a general complaint.
Write to the domain registrar and, where relevant, the payment gateway and the bank whose account is being used to collect money. A bank can act on a written complaint to freeze a beneficiary account while an investigation is pending.
File a police complaint. Financial cheating through a fake website is a cognizable offence, and a written complaint under section 173 of the BNSS, 2023 starts the process. Where the site is impersonating a business, attach proof of your ownership of the name or marks.
If the police do not register an FIR, move the magistrate. Section 175(3) of the BNSS, 2023 allows a magistrate to direct an investigation, and it is a routine step in commercial fraud matters.
Consider a civil suit for injunction. A suit against the unknown defendants described as a website, with the domain registrar and service providers arrayed as parties, allows the court to make blocking and disclosure orders.
Watch for reappearance. A blocked site frequently returns under a similar domain. Keep a list of domains and mirror addresses so the court's order can be extended.

What decides the outcome

Speed of complaint: the earlier a platform, registrar or bank is told, the more that can still be frozen or removed.
Quality of identity evidence: a registered trademark, proof of ownership and verified business records make an injunction far easier to obtain.
The wrongdoer's location: enforcement against an overseas registrar or host is slower and less certain than against a domestic one.
The forum: a criminal complaint, a civil injunction and a platform grievance run independently and can be pursued at the same time.
Whether the intermediary acted: if the platform ignored a valid complaint, the focus shifts from the anonymous defendant to the platform itself.

Where the law is still unsettled

Two questions are not fully resolved. The first is how far a court can go in granting relief against websites that are not yet identified or have not yet been created. Courts have been willing to frame orders that extend to later mirror sites in the same suit, but the reasoning is fact-specific and the scope varies from case to case. It is not yet a settled rule that every interim injunction will automatically cover future domains.

The second is where the line falls between a genuinely passive intermediary and one that has taken an active role in promoting unlawful content. Section 79 turns on what the intermediary did, and that is decided on evidence, which is often messy. For a small business or a private individual, this uncertainty is exactly why the platform route and the court route are best pursued together rather than one after the other.

Common mistakes

Complaining publicly on social media instead of through the documented grievance channel, which weakens the takedown record.
Waiting for the police before telling the bank, host or registrar, when those three can act in hours.
Deleting the offending page or app from your own device, which does not remove it from the server and may lose the record.
Assuming one blocking order is the end of the matter, when mirror domains are the standard next move.
Ignoring the possibility of parallel civil and criminal proceedings, which often achieve more together than either alone.

When to involve a lawyer

A lawyer earns their place in these matters at the drafting and forum-selection stage. A complaint that stacks the correct IT Act provision with the correct BNS provision, attaches the right proof of ownership, and names the right parties moves faster than a general letter. On the civil side, the technical work is in framing a suit that binds parties the plaintiff cannot yet identify, and in asking for orders that a registrar and a service provider can actually obey. If a false or impersonating website is targeting you or your business, you can contact the office to work out the sequence. Where the impersonation has led to criminal proceedings against an accused person, the starting point is criminal defence, and for Kolkata-specific jurisdiction questions the West Bengal cyber law page sets out where such matters are heard.

Nothing here promises a result. What is realistic is a sequence: stop the money, remove the page, identify the wrongdoer, and then decide whether to sue.

Need help with a cyber crime matter?

Tell me what happened and I will tell you what to file, where, and by when. First conversation is free.

Call +91-9007000603 WhatsApp

Frequently asked questions

What is Viacom 18 v IYSERT about?

It is the kind of suit a broadcaster or brand owner files against a website that uses its name, marks or content without authority. Such suits are usually interim-injunction actions against unidentified defendants, and courts direct domain registrars to lock domains and service providers to block access. No reported final judgment under that exact name is presently available, so the current position should be checked on the court record.

Which IT Act sections apply to a fake website?

Section 66D of the IT Act punishes cheating by personation through a computer resource, which fits a fake site that collects payments while pretending to be a real business. Section 66C covers identity theft, section 66 covers general computer offences, and sections 67, 67A and 67B cover obscene or sexually explicit material. General cheating and forgery offences under the BNS, 2023 apply alongside.

What is an intermediary's safe harbour under section 79?

Section 79 of the IT Act protects an intermediary, such as a host or platform, from liability for third-party content it merely transmits or stores. The protection is conditional: the intermediary must observe due diligence, must not initiate or modify the content, and must act on court orders and valid complaints. A platform that ignores a proper notice can lose the shield.

How long does a platform have to remove unlawful content?

Under the IT Rules, 2021 an intermediary must appoint a grievance officer and act on a complaint about unlawful information generally within thirty-six hours of receiving it. The exact timeline depends on the category of content involved. A platform that fails to act within the required period weakens its safe harbour and may itself face liability.

How do I get a fake website taken down in India?

Complain first to the platform or host through its grievance officer, then to the domain registrar and any bank whose account the site is using, keeping proof of each complaint. File a police complaint for the cheating element, and consider a civil suit for an injunction that binds the registrar and service providers. Speed matters most, because money still in an account can be frozen.

Can I sue a website whose owner I cannot identify?

Yes. Indian courts routinely permit suits against unknown defendants described by their website or domain, with registrars and service providers joined as parties. The court can then order the domain to be locked and direct disclosure of registration details that are already on record. This gives the plaintiff a route to relief even before the real owner is identified.

Is a blocking order the end of the problem?

No. A blocked site often reappears under a similar domain, a mirror address or an alphanumeric variation of the original. Courts have responded by framing orders that extend to later-discovered mirror sites, but enforcement still requires the plaintiff to keep monitoring and to bring new domains to the court's attention. Blocking is a step, not a permanent fix.

When should a business involve a lawyer in such a case?

Early, because the drafting and sequencing decide the pace. A complaint that cites the correct IT Act provision, the correct BNS provision and attaches proof of ownership moves faster. On the civil side, an injunction must be framed so that registrars and service providers can actually obey it. A lawyer also coordinates the criminal, civil and platform tracks so they reinforce each other.

Information for general guidance only and not legal advice. Provisions cited follow the Information Technology Act 2000, the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 and the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023.

Cyber crime lawyer in your city · Bank account freeze help · Contact