- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
Court Rules in Favor Of Microsoft, Imposes ₹55 Lakh Damages For Fraudulent Use Of Trademarks

Court Rules in Favor of Microsoft, Imposes ₹55 Lakh Damages for Fraudulent Use of Trademarks
A commercial court in Gurugram recently ordered Retnec Solutions Pvt Ltd to pay ₹55 lakh in damages for trademark infringement and fraudulent call-center activities involving Microsoft’s trademarks, including "HOTMAIL," "OUTLOOK," and "OFFICE 365." The court also imposed a permanent injunction preventing Retnec from using Microsoft’s trademarks, ordered the destruction of infringing materials, and directed payment of punitive damages to address the harm caused to Microsoft's reputation.
The ruling, issued by Additional District Judge Mahavir Singh, states that the defendants, including Retnec’s directors, must pay a combined sum of ₹50 lakh in damages, with ₹5 lakh specifically attributed to certain other defendants. Additionally, Microsoft is entitled to ₹20.6 lakh for litigation costs.
Microsoft, in collaboration with its Indian subsidiary, filed a case against Retnec for violating trademark laws, passing off, and engaging in unfair trade practices under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The tech giant accused Retnec of impersonating Microsoft employees to operate a fraudulent technical support service. The defendants misled customers through deceptive pop-up messages, cold calls, and unauthorized branding, tarnishing Microsoft’s image and defrauding consumers.
Investigations uncovered that Retnec Solutions ran a fraudulent call center in Gurugram, in collusion with other entities, leading to over 700,000 complaints globally. In 2018, Gurugram police raided Retnec's premises, seizing digital evidence and arresting directors Zayed Sahaye and Akshay Anand. The seized evidence included false invoices, payment records, and scripts detailing fraudulent activities.
Microsoft contended that Retnec’s actions resulted in financial losses, damage to its reputation, and extensive technical support fraud. The company sought a total of ₹2 crore in damages. Following the trial, the court also ordered a permanent injunction and directed Retnec to hand over all materials featuring Microsoft trademarks for destruction. Furthermore, Microsoft was granted the right to recover its legal costs from the defendants.