- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Artificial Intelligence
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Arbitration & Mediation
- 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
- Environmental, Social, and Governance
- Foreign Direct Investment
- Food and Beverage
- Gaming
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- In Focus
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- IP & Tech Era
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Student Corner
- Take On Board
- Tax
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Viewpoint
- Zoom In
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- Middle East
- Africa
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Artificial Intelligence
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Arbitration & Mediation
- 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
- Environmental, Social, and Governance
- Foreign Direct Investment
- Food and Beverage
- Gaming
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- In Focus
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- IP & Tech Era
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Student Corner
- Take On Board
- Tax
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Viewpoint
- Zoom In
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- Middle East
- Africa
Delhi High Court issues John Doe order for impersonating INDmoney app
Delhi High Court issues John Doe order for impersonating INDmoney app
The case has been listed for hearing on 17 December
The Delhi High Court has issued a John Doe (legal order against unnamed or unknown defendants) interim injunction to curb widespread trademark infringement and financial fraud targeting unsuspecting users of the share market and financial services app, INDmoney.
The bench of Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora prima facie accepted that Defendant No. 1 (Ashok Kumar) used INDmoney's trademarks to lure individuals into fraudulent investment schemes.
Impersonating INDmoney founder Ashish Kashyap, fraudsters lured victims into fake WhatsApp groups, promising unrealistic investment returns through forged Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) certificates and counterfeit loan documents. Operating through dozens of bank accounts, fake websites and mobile apps that perfectly mimicked the legitimate fintech platform, they gathered crores of rupees.
The bench observed that the victims shared their confidential information and spent their hard-earned money on the infringing platforms.
The injunction was granted as the identity of the defendant was not established and the offenders operated under fictitious identities through various digital channels. The John Doe order specifically restrains the defendant, along with his representatives, affiliates and agents, from infringing INDmoney's registered trade, word and device marks, and copyrights. It includes the operation, hosting or circulation of impugned websites, mobile apps, and messaging platforms that misuse the plaintiffs' intellectual property (IP).
The court's forensic approach was evident in its detailed annexures. Eight infringing websites, four fake mobile apps, dozens of WhatsApp numbers, and over 100 bank account entries were meticulously catalogued.
The fraudsters collected Rs.10,000 to Rs.2.1 crores across multiple accounts.
Justice Arora's injunction went beyond adjudicating the action as illegal. It created a template for combating digital-age IP theft through effective enforcement measures:
Google LLC (Defendant No. 9) and Apple India Private Limited (Defendant No. 10) were ordered to immediately take down/remove/block/suspend the domains/URLs of the impugned websites and mobile applications listed in Annexures A and B.
WhatsApp LLC (Defendant No. 5) and Telegram (Defendant No. 6) were directed to block/suspend/delete the specified telephone numbers, WhatsApp numbers, WhatsApp Groups, and Telegram links (Annexures C and D) used by the fraudsters.
Various banks (Defendant Nos. 11-25) were instructed to block/suspend/freeze bank accounts identified as being used by Defendant No. 1 (Annexure E) and to disclose complete KYC documents and bank statements of the account holders.
The National Cyber Cell and Cyber Police Station, South Gurugram, Haryana, were directed to provide status/investigation reports on complaints filed by the plaintiffs, along with relevant information about the rogue defendants.
Moreover, to ensure rapid response to ongoing digital fraud, the court granted plaintiffs the liberty to swiftly implead any newly discovered domains, websites, URLs, or mobile apps by applying under Order I Rule 10 CPC. The Joint Registrar (J) has the authority to extend the existing injunction order to the new infringing entities, preventing further harm without filing a new suit.
Likewise, for the newly discovered social media accounts, telephone numbers, bank accounts, or UPI IDs, INDmoney can approach the court for appropriate directions. The provision ensures an agile legal mechanism against constantly evolving online threats.
The judgment exhibits how courts can evolve to tackle sophisticated cyber fraud. By enlisting the cooperation of internet service providers, app stores, messaging platforms, and banks simultaneously, the bench created a comprehensive shield against digital fraud.
The provisions for prompt action on future discoveries are particularly significant, enabling swift legal recourse against online illicit activities. It protects the goodwill and reputation of legitimate businesses such as INDmoney.



