Delhi High Court Steps In To Curb Fake Delhivery Franchise Racket, Shields Brand From Impersonation
Delhi High Court Steps In To Curb Fake Delhivery Franchise Racket, Shields Brand From Impersonation
Introduction
The Delhi High Court has granted ex parte ad-interim protection to Delhivery Limited, restraining unknown individuals from misusing its registered trademarks and copyrighted material to defraud unsuspecting members of the public. The Court found a strong prima facie case of trademark infringement, passing off and misrepresentation, warranting urgent interim relief to protect Delhivery’s goodwill and consumers from financial harm.
Factual Background
Delhivery Limited is a well-known logistics and supply chain services provider operating across India. It is the registered proprietor of the trademark “DELHIVERY” and associated artistic and literary works, which it uses extensively in the course of its business. Over the years, Delhivery has built significant goodwill and reputation in the logistics sector.
Delhivery approached the Court alleging that certain unknown individuals were falsely representing themselves as Delhivery’s agents, employees or franchise partners. These individuals were allegedly using marks, domain names and communications deceptively similar to Delhivery’s registered trademarks to lure members of the public with fraudulent franchise and delivery service offers and extract money from them.
Procedural Background
Delhivery instituted a civil suit before the Delhi High Court seeking protection of its trademark and copyright rights and moved an application for urgent ex parte interim relief. The matter was placed before Justice Jyoti Singh, who considered the pleadings and material placed on record at the threshold stage.
Issues
The Court was required to consider whether Delhivery had established a prima facie case of trademark infringement, passing off and copyright violation, whether the balance of convenience lay in its favour, and whether denial of interim relief would result in irreparable harm.
Contentions of the Parties
Delhivery contended that the defendants were deliberately using identical or deceptively similar versions of its registered trademarks, domain names and trade indicia to impersonate the company. It argued that such conduct was dishonest, intended to ride on Delhivery’s goodwill and reputation, and was causing confusion among consumers who shared a common trade channel and consumer base with Delhivery.
Delhivery further pointed out that deceptive domain names such as “delhiverydistibutars.com” and “delhiverypartner.com” were being used to lend credibility to the fraud. It also sought directions to telecom service providers and banks to disclose details of the defendants and block the accounts used to siphon money.
Reasoning and Analysis
The High Court undertook a prima facie comparison of the marks used by the defendants with Delhivery’s registered trademarks and found them to be identical or deceptively similar. The Court observed that Delhivery had established substantial goodwill and reputation through its nationwide operations and that the defendants’ conduct appeared designed to misrepresent an association with Delhivery.
Justice Jyoti Singh noted that the parties operated in the same trade channels and catered to the same consumer base, which significantly heightened the likelihood of confusion. The Court held that the misrepresentation was not merely infringing Delhivery’s statutory rights but was also misleading the public and exposing consumers to financial fraud.
The Court was satisfied that Delhivery had made out a strong prima facie case, that the balance of convenience lay in favour of granting protection, and that irreparable injury would be caused if the infringing activities were allowed to continue even temporarily.
Decision
The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad-interim injunction restraining the defendants from using Delhivery’s trademarks or any deceptively similar marks in any manner, including in emails, domain names, letterheads, franchise communications or agreements. The Court directed domain name registrars to suspend and lock the infringing domain names and ordered telecom service providers to disclose the identity and contact details of the defendants. Banks holding the defendants’ accounts were also directed to disclose KYC details and block or suspend the accounts linked to the fraudulent activities.
The matter has been listed for further hearing on March 19.
In this case the plaintiff was represented by Mr. Essenese Obhan, Ms. Anjuri Saxena and Mr. Mudit Singh, Advocates.
