"JOHN DOE" ORDERS FROM JUDICIARY

K. Vittala Rao
Legal & Management Consultant, Bangalore

Intellectual property (IP), though intangible, is probably the most important form of property today. The definition of IP has widened with the growth of international trade and globalization of the economy, giving the whole business a new paradigm. IP, having developed into a powerful commercial asset with the ever-evolving digital technology, its theft has also become rampant. As we all know, there are two sides to a coin-development of technology, with its positives, has also facilitated IP infringement by unknown and unidentified entities, constituting a class of infringers

A Business, as we know, have their own Trademarks, Data Protection, Intellectual Property, patents, design, copyright, Layout Design of Integrated Circuits, intellectual property personal data protection, fully backed up by respective legislations.
​
Any infringements can be sued by the Company as petitioners against the violators before the appropriate courts. Here, one needs to identify the violator and file a case against such a person with appropriate evidence supported by documentary proof. To identify and locate the violator, many times, it is not always easy and difficult.

For more details

​All Business Managers need to be aware of this principle, which has been adopted by several courts in India.

'John Doe' has its origin in the reign of England's King Edward III, when the orders were used to refer to an unidentifiable defendant. Oxford Dictionary defines John Doe as an "Anonymous Party".

This order is like a shield for creators' intellectual property rights, especially in cases where the infringers involved are unidentified. This order aims to address the issue of copyright infringement and give creators the power to defend their work.

Now in the current era of AI, any AI messages & voices are being created, creation of AI videos with defamatory and harassment on the company with a view to attack its competitiveness in the market, and highly circulated through various social media, like Facebook, WhatsApp, posters, handbills, without disclosing their identity. Naturally, these amounts are not only defamatory and hurt the business, but also may lead to loss of share in the market, incurring heavy financial losses. If the Business wants to file case against such defaulters, how will the company name such defendants will be a challenging one. Therefore, preventive actions like 'John Doe' orders have become significant in the global context, especially for production houses to prevent infringement of their intellectual property rights.

A John Doe order is an order passed by a Court against the world at large. A John Doe order is a type of legal order that allows a person or entity to take legal action against an unknown party or parties. This type of order is often used when the identity of the person or entity being sued is not known at the time when the legal action is being taken. John Doe orders are commonly used in cases involving anonymous internet users or when a company is seeking to identify individuals who have engaged in illegal activity using its services. This order will be a Temporary Injunction; the defendant will be called "John Doe", till the actual defendant is identified and submitted to the court.  The "John Doe" will be replaced. "John Doe" has been prevalent universally.
 
In India, also known as John Doe/ Ashok Kumar/ or an Anton Pillar order
Applicable Legal Provisions
The Order is granted under Order 39 rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ("CPC"), which refers to the court's power to grant a Temporary Injunction read with Section 151 of CPC and Part III Chapter VII of the Specific Relief Act1963 pertaining to permanent injunction. It's a powerful tool empowering rights holders to take action against unknown infringers, allowing them to serve notices, search premises, and secure evidence.
 
What are the pre-conditions?
1. Frank and full disclosure: Plaintiff has an obligation to make full and frank disclosure to the Court, inter alia, of the existence of his right, instances of previous breach, and of an anticipated large-scale and sporadic infringement by known and unknown persons.

2. Prima facie case: Plaintiff is required to establish a prima facie case before any pre-emptive relief  can be granted to the plaintiff. There must be clear evidence that the defendants have in their possession incriminating documents or things, and that there is a real possibility that they may destroy such material before any application can be made.

3. "Actual/ Potential Damage or Irreparable Losses: Plaintiff must establish that, in the absence of the requested John Doe order, defendant's actions will cause harm that will potentially or actually result in financial or irreparable losses. The damage, potential or actual, must be very serious for the applicant.

I have made some attempts to collect some important judicial pronouncements in this matter
Dabur India filed a trademark infringement suit before the Delhi High Court in 2024, CS (COMM) 629/2023, seeking similar orders with respect to infringement of its various IPs, including the trademark 'DABUR', copyright in the labels and packaging of its various products, passing off, and unfair competition. An ex parte permanent injunction was granted.

The case of ESPN Software v. Tudu Enterprises, Delhi High Court in 2011, CS/OS 384/2011], ESPN Software Pvt. Ltd. claimed exclusive rights as the sole distributor of three pay channels-ESPN, STAR Sports, and STAR Cricket-in India, securing these rights from ESPN STAR Sports to televise all ICC events until 2015. They alleged infringement upon their exclusive broadcasting rights for the 2011 Cricket World Cup by unauthorized cable operators. These operators were unlawfully capturing the plaintiff's sports-related channels and transmitting them despite lacking distribution rights or legal authority. The Court observed that the defendants' unauthorized transmission violated Section 37(3) of the Copyrights Act, 1957. Consequently, the Court issued an injunction against unnamed and undisclosed individuals who might have breached Plaintiff's rights by illegally tapping DTH connections and integrating them into distribution networks. The Court also emphasized the impermissibility of subscribing to channels without a proper license.

Expanding the Scope John Doe Order in the case of Amitabh Bachchan v. Rajat Nagi and Ors. [CS (COMM) 819/2022], the Delhi High Court issued a John Doe order to protect personality rights for the first time. This marked another significant advancement in the domain of personality rights within India. The court issued an ad interim in rem (i.e., against the world) injunction against the unauthorized use of his personality and personal attributes such as his voice, name, images, and likeness for commercial use. This was the first blanket John Doe order granted in India for the protection of personality rights.

In the case of Ardath Tobacco Company Ltd. vs. Mr. Munna Bhai and Others [2009(39) PTC 208 (Del).  An order was issued against unidentified defendants, prohibiting them from producing, vending, storing, or engaging in the trade of cigarettes using packaging materials deceptively similar to those of Plaintiff's brand.

The issue was initially highlighted in the case of Industrial Finance Corporation of   India, Delhi HC (CS(OS)2676/2011, which involved posting of derogatory remarks/write-ups on Google, Facebook and Twitter by using blogs/URL and emails. John Doe's order was passed directing the unidentified defendants from blocking the sites/blogs and ascertaining the actual users/persons creating   URL/IP addresses.

The Delhi HC, in 2016, in the recent judgment of Super Cassettes Industries vs. Myspace [https//cis-india.org] held that social networking sites ("SNS") such as YouTube, Myspace etc. may be held liable for copyright infringement caused due to infringing material posted on such websites,  provided  it may be established  that  intermediaries had control over the material posted, had the opportunity to exercise  due diligence in preventing infringement and derived profits out of  such infringing activities in consonance with Section 79 of the Information Technology Act read with Information  Technology (Intermediaries guidelines) Rules, 2011.

In the case of M/s Sandisk Corporation vs. John Doe, Delhi HC in 2017, CS(OS) 3205/2014, the Plaintiff had submitted that certain unknown persons were selling counterfeit products with an identical name and packaging, and logo, and it was impossible to identify the sellers. The Court issued an order "the unnamed and undisclosed persons arrayed as 'John  Does' are restrained  from  manufacturing,   selling,  offering for sale, advertising, directly or indirectly, dealing in counterfeit products, which are identical to the products bearing the plaintiff's Trade mark SanDisk and logo marks and the 'Red Frame' logo, with identical product  packaging,  product  getup color scheme, layout,  overall  look  and feel as that being used by the plaintiff."
 
Conclusion
John Doe-Prevention is better than a cure. Creating widespread awareness about the positive effects of such orders is essential to maximize their usage and curtail the wrongful acts of the infringers. This has brought in awareness and protection to holders of IP rights, but the question remains how such orders will be implemented and enforced. Constant vigil, awareness amongst all Managers and periodic assessments, the skill of investigations is most essential.
 
References:
http://ssrn.com/abstract=2224153 'What's in a name'…John Doe arrives in India.
https://www.nitishdesai.com PayelChatterjee*
https://www.livelaw.in/law-firms/law-firm-articles-/john-doe-order-fifa-world-cup-quia-timet-civil-procedure-code-delhi-high-court-non-fungible-token-220689
https://www.btgadya.com: Ramesh Vaidyanathan & Nidhi Tandon
https://www.dalaw.in Dhwaj & Associates

Courtesy:
Business Manager
November 2025

"JOHN DOE" ORDERS FROM JUDICIARY
File Size:	3542 kb
File Type:	pdf

Download File

---

---

K. VITTALA RAO BOOKS