Established brand names are not only identifiers but also the means by which a business demonstrates reliability, quality, and goodwill. However, such brand names often attract devious users who attempt to exploit them by misleading consumers through fraudulent schemes, fake websites, or deceptive online representations. The courts in India have been increasingly tasked with protecting legitimate brand names and preventing misuse of their marks in the digital space.
The decision of the Delhi High Court in Tata Power
Renewable Energy Limited & Ors. vs Ashok Kumar & Ors.
(CS(COMM) 1015/2024), delivered on July 30, 2025,
represents a critical case in the area of IP protection. In this
case, the Court was required to examine the misuse of the reputed
the registered trademarks of the plaintiffs i.e., 'TATA',
'
', ' 
', 'TATA POWER', ' 
', ' 
', or any other deceptively similar
marks.
Facts of the Case
The plaintiffs, Tata Power Renewable Energy Limited and other
Tata entities, discovered between June 2024 and March 2025 that
several innocent individuals were being duped by Defendant No. 1,
described as a "John Doe" defendant, and Defendant No.
18, who had fraudulently presented themselves as authorised dealers
or service providers of the plaintiffs. The defendants were
misusing the plaintiffs' well-known marks, including
'TATA', ' ', ' ', 'TATA POWER', ' ', and ' ', to give credibility to their fraudulent
operations.
The unauthorised use involved the creation of deceptive domain names and email addresses which copied the plaintiffs' registered abovementioned marks. One such domain was "www.tatasolarpowerdistributor.com," which was being used by Defendant No. 18 to mislead consumers. Victims of these schemes were induced to part with money on the false pretext of receiving dealership rights or renewable energy services associated with Tata Power.
Recognising the potential harm to both its reputation and unsuspecting members of the public, Tata Power filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction to restrain infringement, passing off, and unfair competition. Interim injunctions had earlier been granted by the Court on 14 November 2024 and 8 April 2025, restraining the defendants from using the plaintiffs' marks or any deceptively similar representations.
The plaintiffs subsequently sought summary judgment, contending that Defendants Nos. 1 and 18 had neither appeared nor filed written statements, and therefore had no real prospect of defending the suit. Against the other defendants, who were primarily banks hosting fraudulent accounts, the plaintiffs sought freezing of accounts and transfer of funds. They also requested a dynamic injunction to extend the protection of the decree to any future mirror or redirect websites associated with the imposters.
Judgment of the Court
Vide order dated November 14, 2024 passed by the Court in I.A.
45021/2024, the Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim
injunction restraining Defendant No. 1 as well as others from using
the registered trademarks of the Plaintiffs i.e., 'TATA',
' ', ' ', 'TATA POWER', ' ', ' ', or any other mark which is deceptively
similar to the Plaintiffs registered trademarks.
The Court first noted that Defendants Nos. 1 and 18, the principal infringers, had failed to file any written statement or affidavit of admission and denial. The Court held that the plaintiffs were the undisputed registered proprietors of the impugned marks and that the defendants' conduct amounted to both trademark infringement and passing off. The domain name "www.tatasolarpowerdistributor.com" was found to be deceptively similar to the plaintiffs' registered marks, leaving no doubt about the intent to deceive.
Defendant No. 16, i.e., DoT and Defendant No. 17, i.e., MeitY, were directed to issue notifications to different internet and telecom service providers for blocking access to the impugned domain name www.tatasolarpowerdistributor.com and the impugned mobile number. The Court also passed similar directions vide order April 8, 2025.
In support of granting summary judgment in the present suit, the Court relied on its earlier decision in Su-Kam Power Systems Ltd. vs Kunwer Sachdev, where it had held that the purpose of Order XIII-A CPC is to ensure expeditious resolution of commercial disputes. The Court reiterated that a trial is no longer the default mode of adjudication in such matters, and summary judgment is appropriate where the defendant lacks any realistic prospect of defending the claim.
Consequently, the Court decreed a permanent injunction against Defendants Nos. 1 and 18 in terms of the plaintiffs' amended plaint. Defendant No. 18 was specifically directed to suspend the infringing domain name. Further, the banks holding accounts linked to the fraudulent defendants were directed to freeze those accounts and transfer the funds in those accounts to the Reserve Bank of India's Depositor and Education Awareness Fund.
The Court also addressed the plaintiffs' prayer for a dynamic injunction. Drawing upon earlier precedents such as UTV Software Communication Ltd. vs 1337X.to and Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. vs Skymovies.live, the Court permitted the plaintiffs to implead mirror or alphanumeric websites associated with Defendant No. 18 through appropriate applications in future. Any such websites, once impleaded and verified, would be bound by the same decree.
Implications of the Judgment
As businesses continue to expand their presence in diverse sectors and fraudsters increasingly exploit online platforms, this decision sets a robust precedent. It establishes the strong protection available to well-known marks such as "TATA" and recognises that misuse of such marks in deceptive online activities not only infringes the trademark proprietor's rights but also causes substantial harm to unsuspecting consumers.
Furthermore, by granting relief without a full-fledged trial, the Court demonstrated that procedural efficiency is crucial in curbing ongoing consumer harm and preventing the continued misuse of trademarks. This is particularly relevant in cases involving online fraud, where delay could aggravate consumer losses and dilute brand reputation. Additionally, by allowing the plaintiffs to extend the decree to future websites through a dynamic injunction, the Court provided an effective and flexible mechanism to deal with recurring infringement without requiring fresh litigation each time.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
