necessarily be infringing in nature and, thereby, injunct, in an omnibus and global fashion, DNRs from ever providing any domain name containing „Snapdeal‟. This, in my view, would be completely impermissible. Section 28(1) of the Trade Marks Act provides the proprietor of a registered trade mark the right to obtain relief in respect of infringement of the registered trade mark. „Infringement of registered trade marks‟ is, in turn, defined in Section 29. Infringement, in each sub-section of Section 29, is envisaged by use of „a mark‟ which infringes the registered trade mark of another, and sets out the various situations in which such infringement could be said to have taken place. The allegedly infringing mark must, however, be clear and identifiable. If it is, by combined operation of Sections 28(1) and 29, the proprietor of the allegedly infringed registered trade mark would be entitled to an injunction against the use of the allegedly infringing mark. The plaintiff has to draw the attention of the court to the marks, of the defendant, which infringe the plaintiff's registered trade mark. In the present case, the plaintiff has necessarily to come to the court — as it has been doing in the past — against every domain name which it perceives to be infringing of its registered „Snapdeal‟ marks. The court would then have to examine whether such mark is, in fact, infringing and, if so, injunct the use of such mark/domain names. The cause of action, in any trade mark infringement
