Delhi High Court Grants Ex-Parte Injunction To HCL Against ‘HCL Mediclinic’ Scam; Orders Domain Suspension, Account Freeze & Disclosure Of Fraudsters’ Details

Delhi High Court Grants Ex-Parte Injunction To HCL Against ‘HCL Mediclinic’ Scam; Orders Domain Suspension, Account Freeze & Disclosure Of Fraudsters’ Details

Introduction

The Delhi High Court has granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favour of HCL Corporation Pvt. Ltd., restraining unidentified parties from misusing the “HCL” trademark in an alleged fraudulent scheme involving fake joint ventures and job scams under the name “HCL Mediclinic.” The Court held that a strong prima facie case of trademark infringement and passing off had been made out and that continued misuse would cause irreparable injury to the plaintiff’s goodwill and reputation.

Factual Background

HCL Corporation Pvt. Ltd., the registered proprietor of the “HCL” trademark since at least 1997, instituted the present suit upon discovering fraudulent activities being carried out by rogue third parties. The plaintiff alleged that unknown individuals were impersonating company officials and issuing fraudulent emails, calls and messages while posing as representatives of HCL.

The fraudulent scheme allegedly operated on two fronts. First, members of the public were approached with proposals to enter into joint ventures under the name “HCL Mediclinic,” and were induced to deposit substantial sums into fake bank accounts falsely projected as belonging to HCL. Second, fake job offers were circulated promising lucrative remuneration, with candidates being asked to pay money for purported job-related services.

HCL further submitted that the defendants were using its registered trademarks, including “HCL” and “HCL Healthcare,” along with its healthcare tagline “Making Corporate India Healthier.” The plaintiff emphasised that it had built substantial goodwill, particularly through its HCL Avitas division, which has conducted over 10,00,000 health check-ups since inception.

Procedural Background

Aggrieved by the alleged fraudulent activities and misuse of its trademark and domain names, HCL filed the present suit seeking urgent ex-parte ad-interim relief. The plaintiff also sought ancillary directions against domain registrars, telecom service providers and banks to prevent continuation of the scam and to trace the perpetrators.

The matter came up before Justice Tushar Rao Gedela for consideration of interim relief.

Issues

1. Whether the plaintiff established a prima facie case of trademark infringement and passing off.

2. Whether the unauthorised use of the “HCL” mark in connection with fraudulent schemes warranted immediate ex-parte injunction.

3. Whether ancillary directions against intermediaries and banks were justified to prevent further harm.

Contentions of the Parties

The plaintiff contended that it is the registered proprietor of the “HCL” mark and has built immense goodwill and reputation in the healthcare and corporate wellness sector. It was submitted that the defendants’ use of the mark “HCL” and related healthcare branding in connection with fraudulent joint ventures and job scams constituted blatant infringement and passing off.

The plaintiff further argued that the misuse was not merely commercial infringement but was part of a scam designed to cheat and dupe innocent members of the public. Such conduct, it was submitted, would cause irreparable damage to HCL’s reputation and public trust, which could not be compensated in monetary terms.

Reasoning and Analysis

The Court observed that HCL, as the registered proprietor of the “HCL” trademark, had established a strong prima facie case for grant of interim relief. Justice Gedela noted that the defendants were fraudulently and unauthorisedly using the HCL trademarks and registered domain names for the purpose of cheating and scamming the public.

The Court held that such misuse would cause irreparable loss and injury to the plaintiff’s goodwill and reputation. The balance of convenience was found to be in favour of the plaintiff, particularly in light of the fraudulent nature of the activities and the potential harm to unsuspecting members of the public.

The Bench emphasised that continued unauthorised use of the mark in connection with scams could severely damage the plaintiff’s brand integrity and public confidence, warranting immediate injunctive relief.

Decision

The defendants are restrained from using the plaintiff’s trademarks, including “HCL” and “HCL Healthcare,” or any identical or deceptively similar marks for healthcare services or any other goods or services. GoDaddy.com LLC was directed to disclose registrant details of the infringing domains hclhealth.in and hclhealthcares.com, and to lock and suspend the said domains.

WhatsApp, Reliance Jio Infocom Limited, Bharti Airtel Limited and Vodafone Idea Limited were directed to disclose identities associated with specified mobile numbers and to block or suspend the concerned numbers and accounts. State Bank of India and Punjab National Bank were directed to disclose complete KYC details and freeze the specified bank accounts referred to in the order. The matter was listed before the Joint Registrar on 21 April 2026 and before the Court on 6 August 2026 for further proceedings.

In this case HCL was represented by Mr. Neel Mason, Ms.Ekta Sharma, Mr. Udit Tewari and Ms. Surabhi Katare, Advocates.