Delhi High Court Stops Fake Investment Schemes Operating Under ‘SUEZ’ Name, Orders Takedowns And Account Freezes

Delhi High Court Stops Fake Investment Schemes Operating Under ‘SUEZ’ Name, Orders Takedowns And Account Freezes

Introduction

The Delhi High Court has granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favour of Suez International and its group companies, restraining unknown entities from misusing the “SUEZ” trademark to run fraudulent investment schemes. The Court held that the unauthorised use of the well-known “SUEZ” mark amounted to trademark infringement and passing off, posing serious risk of deception and financial harm to the public.

Factual Background

The Plaintiffs form part of the SUEZ Group, a global leader in water and wastewater management, operating in India since 1978 and managing over 50 treatment infrastructures. Plaintiff No. 1 is the registered proprietor of multiple “SUEZ” word and device trademarks across various classes. The “SUEZ” mark enjoys substantial goodwill and international recognition.

The Plaintiffs discovered that unknown entities were using the “SUEZ” trademark to promote fraudulent investment schemes promising assured returns such as “VIP Daily Withdrawal” and “Stable Income.” These schemes were promoted through websites www.waterineco.com and www.waterenvin.com, a Telegram group, YouTube videos, and an Android-based application titled “SUEZ.” Payments were solicited through multiple mobile numbers and UPI IDs, which were frequently changed.

Procedural Background

Upon discovering the fraudulent misuse of its trademark, the Plaintiffs instituted a commercial suit before the Delhi High Court seeking urgent injunctive relief. Given the nature of the fraud and the imminent risk of public harm, the Plaintiffs also sought exemption from mandatory pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

Issues

1. Whether the unauthorised use of the “SUEZ” trademark by unknown entities constituted trademark infringement and passing off.

2. Whether an ex-parte ad-interim injunction was warranted in view of the alleged fraud and public interest.

3. Whether urgent interim relief justified exemption from pre-institution mediation.

Contentions of the Parties

The Plaintiffs contended that the “SUEZ” mark is well-known and exclusively associated with their business. They argued that the defendants’ use of the mark to solicit investments was dishonest, misleading, and calculated to deceive the public into believing an association with the Plaintiffs. It was submitted that continued misuse would cause irreparable harm to the Plaintiffs’ goodwill and result in financial loss to unsuspecting investors.

As the defendants were unidentified “John Doe” entities, no appearance or defence was placed before the Court on their behalf.

Reasoning and Analysis

Justice Tejas Karia held that the Plaintiffs had established a strong prima facie case based on trademark ownership, reputation, and evidence of deceptive use. The Court observed that the defendants were using the identical trademark for offering investment schemes, which was likely to mislead the public into assuming affiliation with the Plaintiffs.

The Court noted that the misuse of a well-known mark for fraudulent activities not only damages brand reputation but also undermines public trust. It found that delay in granting relief would result in irreparable injury to both the Plaintiffs and members of the public.

In light of the urgency and the organised nature of the fraud, the Court held that exemption from pre-institution mediation was justified.

Decision

The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining the defendants from using the “SUEZ” trademark or any deceptively similar mark in any manner. The Court directed:

• Suspension and locking of the infringing domain names.
• Removal of specified YouTube videos and blocking of the Telegram group.
• Blocking of multiple mobile numbers and suspension of associated UPI IDs.
• Freezing of bank accounts linked to the fraudulent transactions.
• Disclosure of KYC details, bank records and IP logs by intermediaries in sealed cover.

The matter has been listed before the Joint Registrar on February 2, 2026, and before the Court on March 19, 2026.

In this case the plaintiff was represented by Ms. Saya Choudhary, Mr. Sajan Shankar, Mr. Partheshwar Singh & Mr. Vishambher Bareja, Advocates.

Meanwhile the defendant was represented by Mr. Aditya Gupta, Advocate for D-5 and Mr. Hardik Malik, Advocate for D-6 Mr. Satya Ranjan Swain, Mr. Kautilya Birat, Mr. Ankeesh Kapoor & Mr. Vishwadeep, Advocates for D-7 to 9.