The Delhi High Court has restrained a hidden real estate squatter from operating deceptively similar websites misusing Signature Global’s registered marks, logos and exclusive Tonino Lamborghini collaboration content, while ordering global registrars to disclose the John Doe’s KYC details in sealed covers. The Court held that where the registered proprietor of well-known real estate trademarks alleges infringement, copyright violation and passing off through multiple deceptively similar websites operated by an unidentified squatter whose WHOIS details are masked, the Court can grant an ex parte ad interim injunction and direct global domain registrars to lock and suspend the infringing domains.
Accordingly, ex parte ad interim injunction granted against John Doe / Ashok Kumar restraining registration, operation, hosting, publishing and advertising of nine websites using the SIGNATUREGLOBAL marks, logos and copyrighted project content. Also, six global domain registrars, namely, GoDaddy, Hostinger, Openprovider, WIX, NAMECHEAP and Realtime Register are directed to lock and suspend the infringing domains within 72 hours of receipt of the order.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Jyoti Singh noted that the impugned websites were using the Plaintiff’s registered marks SIGNATUREGLOBAL, the logos, copyrighted work and overall get-up and presentation of the websites for advertising and promoting residential and commercial real estate projects, and that the Plaintiff, as registered proprietor, was entitled to use the marks exclusively. The Court observed that the use of identical marks by Defendant No. 1 on the impugned websites for identical services was causing confusion amongst members of the public and trade and amounted to infringement under Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
The Court further observed that Defendant No. 1 had no right, title, licence or authorisation to use the registered marks, corporate name, domain name or copyrighted works of the Plaintiff, and that the adoption of the SIGNATUREGLOBAL marks was clearly aimed at misrepresenting an association with the Plaintiff to encash on its goodwill and reputation for unlawful monetary gains, causing irreparable harm and injury and amounting to passing off. The Court recorded that the Plaintiff had made out a prima facie case for grant of ex parte ad interim injunction, that the balance of convenience lay in favour of the Plaintiff, and that irreparable loss would be caused if relief was refused.
Briefly, Signature Global (India) Limited, described as a leading publicly listed real estate development company engaged in building affordable, mid-income and premium residential and commercial projects across NCR and other parts of North India, approached the Delhi High Court against Ashok Kumar/John Doe (Defendant No. 1) and several domain registrars including GoDaddy.com LLC, Hostinger Operations UAB, Hosting Concepts B.V. (Openprovider), WIX.com Ltd., NAMECHEAP and Realtime Register B.V.
The Plaintiff is the registered proprietor of the trademarks SIGNATUREGLOBAL/ in Class 36 (real estate affairs) and Class 37 (building construction) and claims to have delivered over 17.9 million square feet of development across more than 52 projects, serving over 41,000 customers. The suit was triggered by Defendant No. 1’s alleged dishonest adoption of the SIGNATUREGLOBAL marks, corporate name, domain name, branding, project name and overall trade dress through a series of deceptively similar websites, namely signatureglobalfloors.co.in, signatureglobal.realtorprojects.com, signature-project-gurgaon.com, signatureglobalgreaternoida.com, signatureglobalnoida.in and signatureglobalbuilders.com, as also lamborghiniresidencesgurgaon.in, toninolamborghini-residences.com and signaturetoninolamborghini.com.
The Plaintiff further alleged that Defendant No. 1 was reproducing copyrighted project renders, photographs, literary content, promotional material, project descriptions and maps relating to the Plaintiff’s exclusive luxury collaboration with Tonino Lamborghini, falsely representing an association with the Plaintiff. The registrant details of the impugned websites were concealed or masked in the WHOIS records, leaving the Plaintiff unable to identify the persons actually operating them.
