Delhi High Court Shields AKASA AIR Brand From Impersonation, Halts Nationwide Job Scam Using Airline’s Name

Delhi High Court Shields AKASA AIR Brand From Impersonation, Halts Nationwide Job Scam Using Airline’s Name

Introduction

The Delhi High Court has granted interim protection to SNV Aviation Private Limited, which operates the well-known airline brand AKASA AIR, against a large-scale job scam involving impersonation, trademark infringement, and deception of unsuspecting job seekers. The Court held that the misuse of the AKASA AIR trademarks not only harmed the airline’s goodwill but also posed a serious risk to the general public.

Factual Background

SNV Aviation Private Limited is a reputed airline company that has been continuously and extensively using the trademarks “AKASA AIR,” “AKASA,” and related formatives since 2021. The company holds multiple trademark registrations in India and abroad and operates its official website since 2021. By the financial year 2024–25, the airline reported an external turnover of approximately ₹4,582.7 crore, reflecting its significant market presence and goodwill.

The plaintiff discovered that several defendants were colluding to run a job scam by impersonating AKASA AIR. These entities were using deceptively similar marks such as “AKASHA” and “AKAASA,” along with the plaintiff’s registered trademarks, to falsely represent themselves as agents or employees of the airline. Through phone calls, emails, and fraudulent websites, the defendants offered fake employment opportunities and demanded “process fees” from job seekers.

Procedural Background

Aggrieved by the continued misuse of its trademarks and the reputational damage caused by the fraudulent activities, SNV Aviation instituted a commercial suit before the Delhi High Court seeking permanent injunction, damages, rendition of accounts, and other ancillary reliefs. The matter came up before Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, who considered the plaintiff’s request for urgent interim protection.

Issues

1. Whether the defendants’ activities amounted to trademark infringement, passing off, and unfair competition.

2. Whether a prima facie case was made out for grant of an interim injunction.

3. Whether the balance of convenience and irreparable injury justified immediate court intervention.

Contentions of the Parties

The plaintiff contended that the defendants were deliberately misusing its registered trademarks and corporate identity to cheat job seekers, causing grave reputational harm and erosion of public trust. It was emphasized that AKASA AIR does not charge any recruitment or process fees, and the defendants’ conduct was wholly fraudulent.

The defendants did not place any credible material on record to justify their use of the impugned marks or to deny the allegations at the interim stage.

Reasoning and Analysis

The Court found that the defendants’ acts of approaching members of the public, falsely claiming to offer employment on behalf of AKASA AIR, and demanding money clearly amounted to misrepresentation, deception, and passing off. It noted that the defendants had also registered infringing domain names and used misleading email IDs to create a false association with the plaintiff.

On the question of balance of convenience, the Court held that it lay squarely in favour of the plaintiff. It observed that if the defendants were not restrained, the plaintiff would suffer irreparable injury to its reputation and goodwill, which could not be adequately compensated by damages. The Court further stressed that injunctive relief was necessary not only to protect the airline but also to safeguard the interests of the general public being ensnared by the scam.

Decision

The Delhi High Court held that a strong prima facie case was made out and granted an ex parte ad-interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff. The defendants were restrained from infringing the AKASA AIR trademarks, passing off their activities as those of the plaintiff, and using the impugned marks in any manner, including through domain names, email addresses, offer letters, or communications.

The Court also directed domain name registrars to suspend and lock infringing domains, ordered telecom authorities and service providers to block mobile numbers and disclose KYC details, and instructed banks and payment authorities to freeze accounts and UPI IDs used in the scam. All service providers were directed to comply within one week, and notices were issued to all defendants.

In this case the plaintiff was represented by Mr. Essenese Obhan, Ms. Ayesha Guhathakurta and Ms. Urvika Aggarwal, Advocates.