The Court directed platforms like Meta, X, and LinkedIn to suspend accounts used by the perpetrators to falsely solicit dealership applications. These platforms were also ordered to provide details of the individuals operating these accounts. WhatsApp was instructed to deactivate the accounts of the alleged impersonators, based on the information provided by Reliance Retail’s lawyers.
NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court, on Monday (23rd Dec), ordered the removal of websites and social media accounts that falsely claimed to offer dealerships for Reliance Retail brands like Campa Cola and Reliance Independence.
The Court also instructed the Delhi Police’s cyber cell to investigate the matter and track down the impersonators, with a status report to be submitted by the next hearing.
Justice Mini Pushkarna passed the order after being informed that the impersonators were collecting money from the public.
“In light of the submissions, the cyber cell is directed to investigate and identify the platforms and websites involved. A status report should be filed by the Delhi Police cyber cell,”
the Court ordered.
The Court further directed platforms like Meta, X, and LinkedIn to suspend accounts used by the perpetrators to falsely solicit dealership applications. These platforms were also ordered to provide details of the individuals operating these accounts. WhatsApp was instructed to deactivate the accounts of the alleged impersonators, based on the information provided by Reliance Retail’s lawyers.
Additionally, the bank handling the defendants’ accounts was ordered to suspend them and provide KYC details. The Court also directed Internet Service Providers and the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MEITy) to block access to the fake dealership websites immediately.
The unknown defendants were prohibited from using the trademarks of Reliance Industries Limited, Campa Cola, and Independence, with the Court granting a dynamic injunction to address future violations.
During the hearing, advocate Sidharth Chopra, representing Reliance, argued that unauthorized individuals were soliciting dealership applications for Campa Cola and Independence, collecting money, and sending fake confirmation emails. He presented documents and evidence showing the fraud, which was damaging the Reliance brand’s reputation.
Chopra emphasized the financial fraud being perpetrated by those offering non-existent opportunities and requested immediate interim orders. Given the public harm caused by the misuse of the trademarks, he urged the Court to direct the cyber cell to investigate and file a report.
Reliance Retail was represented by advocates Sidharth Chopra, Yatinder Garg, Disha Sharma, Akshay Maloo, Rimjhim Tiwari, and Srishti Dhoundiyal from Saikrishna Associates.
Similarly, In a different case The LT Marg police station registered a case against unidentified individuals for allegedly defrauding traders by falsely offering dealerships for Campa Cola, a soft drink brand owned by Reliance Consumer Products Limited (RCPL). Cybercriminals reportedly created a fake website, bank account, and email address using the Campa Cola name to collect registration fees from unsuspecting traders, according to RCPL’s complaint.
The complaint states that the company became aware of the fraudulent activities in May this year when a consumer reported receiving an email from info@campacola.org, an address not authorized by RCPL.
The email directed recipients to a website, https://www.campacolaapplicationstatus.com, where they were invited to register as dealers or super stockists for the beverage by paying a fee. Several traders reportedly transferred Rs 49,500 to the bank account listed on the website but received no further communication. Disappointed, they later approached RCPL representatives to report the fraud.
An official from the LT Marg police station confirmed that a case has been filed against unidentified individuals under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, including Section 419 (cheating by impersonation), Section 420 (cheating and dishonesty), Section 465 (forgery), Section 468 (forgery for the purpose of cheating), Section 469 (forgery intended to harm reputation), and Section 471 (using forged documents as genuine). Relevant provisions of the Information Technology Act have also been invoked in the case.
Case Title: Reliance Retail Vs RIL Business.in & Ors.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
