The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte interim injunction protecting Delhivery’s registered trademark and copyright from unauthorised use by alleged fraudsters. Justice Jyoti Singh noted defendants used deceptively similar marks to impersonate Delhivery and extort customers online money.
NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court has issued an “ex parte interim injunction” to safeguard the registered trademark and copyright of logistics provider Delhivery against unauthorized infringement of its marks. Delhivery approached the Court, alleging that certain individuals (defendants) were colluding to misrepresent themselves as Delhivery representatives in order to extort money from unsuspecting customers by offering fraudulent franchise and delivery services.
Justice Jyoti Singh remarked that the marks employed by the defendants are deceptively similar to Delhivery’s registered trademark.
Factual Background of the Case:
Delhivery was originally incorporated as SSN Logistics Private Limited in June 2011, rebranded as Delhivery Private Limited in December 2015, and later renamed Delhivery Limited in October 2021. The company was listed on the National Stock Exchange in May 2022 and operates the official website www.delhivery.com, registered since March 2011, along with an extensive presence across major social media platforms.
Delhivery stated that its DELHIVERY trademarks, registered across multiple classes, form a core part of its brand identity due to long and exclusive use. The company alleged that Defendants 1–6 were acting in collusion, misusing its trademarks, domain names, and content to run a fraudulent franchise and delivery scam.
The network involved impersonation of Delhivery officials, deceptive domain names, and unlawful monetary extraction, with banks, payment authorities, telecom providers, government departments, and domain registrars impleaded for facilitating investigation and enforcement.
Submissions made by the Plaintiff:
The plaintiff contended that Defendants 1 to 6 acted in concert to infringe its registered DELHIVERY trademarks, using both the identical mark “DELHIVERY” and a deceptively similar variant, “DELHEVERY,” to falsely offer franchise, distributorship, and delivery services. Citing Sections 28 and 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, it asserted its exclusive statutory rights and alleged clear trademark infringement.
The plaintiff further claimed copyright infringement, stating that a “Delhivery Franchise Prospectus” circulated by Defendant No. 2 was a near-verbatim reproduction of its original literary work. Such unauthorised copying, it argued, violated its rights under Section 14 of the Copyright Act, 1957.
Observations of the Court:
The court observed that,
“Plaintiff has made out a prima facie case for grant of ex parte ad interim injunction. Balance of convenience lies in favour of the Plaintiff and it is likely to suffer irreparable harm in case ex parte ad interim injunction as prayed for, is not granted.”
The Court further indicated that there is prima facie evidence suggesting the defendants were misrepresenting themselves as Delhivery representatives to capitalize on the company’s goodwill and reputation.
The Court noted,
“Comparison of the impugned marks used by Defendants No.1 to 6 shows that they are identical/deceptively similar to the registered DELHIVERY trademarks of the Plaintiff… Plaintiff has built a formidable goodwill and reputation through its services and it is prima facie evident that Defendants No.1 to 6 are offering services either by misrepresenting themselves as employees/executives of the Plaintiff or by using the impugned marks and the intent is to ride on the goodwill and reputation of the Plaintiff,”
The Court also observed that since Delhivery and the defendants share a common consumer base and trade channels, confusion is likely to arise if an interim injunction is not issued.
The Court stated,
“The impugned marks being identical/deceptively similar and the consumer base and trade channels being common, there is every likelihood of confusion amongst members of the trade and consumers,”
Consequently, the Court prohibited the defendants from using Delhivery’s trademarks in emails, domain names, letterheads, franchise letters, or agreements in any form.
Delhivery additionally pointed out that the defendants were utilizing misleading domain names such as ‘delhiverydistibutars.com’ and ‘delhiverypartner.com.’ In response, the Court instructed the relevant domain registrars to suspend and lock these infringing domain names.
Furthermore, the Court ordered telecom service providers to reveal the full names, email addresses, and residential addresses of the defendants.
The banks managing the defendants’ accounts were also directed to disclose their KYC details and to block or suspend the accounts in question.
The case is set to be heard again on March 19.
Advocates Essenese Obhan, Anjuri Saxena, and Mudit Singh represented Delhivery.
Case Title: Delhivery Limited Vs John Doe/Ashok Kumar and others
Read Attachment:
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
