The Delhi High Court has held the unauthorised ‘PURPLLE 2026 Franchise Opportunity’ as actionable trademark infringement, copyright infringement and passing off, emphasising that the goodwill of a Unicorn brand cannot be left to monetary compensation. The Court therefore granted an ex parte ad-interim injunction against the unknown operator of a Facebook page and WhatsApp Business Account offering a fake ‘PURPLLE 2026 Franchise Opportunity’ for Rs. 15 lakhs, using the Plaintiff’s registered mark, logo, genuine store photographs and official email.
The Court recorded prima facie infringement under Sections 29(1) and 29(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, copyright infringement under Section 51 read with Section 14 of the Copyright Act, 1957, and passing off, on the basis that the identical mark was used as the central identifier of a commercial franchise programme. Reliance was placed on the Plaintiff’s 62 trademark registrations across 14 classes, Unicorn valuation of approximately USD 1.1 billion.
Meta was ordered to take down the impugned URL within 36 hours and disclose BSI and IP logs, WhatsApp LLC was directed to suspend the linked account within 36 hours and disclose registration, IP, login and payment details, Reliance Jio was directed to block the mobile number within 36 hours and furnish KYC particulars, and Truecaller was directed to remove the false ‘Purplle Store’ listing within 36 hours.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Jyoti Singh observed that the Plaintiff is the registered proprietor of the trademark PURPLLE with 62 registrations across multiple classes, the earliest dating back to Dec 19, 2014, and is the owner of copyright in the registered artistic works comprised in its logos. The Plaintiff’s turnover under the mark rose from Rs. 10,034.99 Lakhs in FY 2019-2020 to Rs. 40,190.69 Lakhs in FY 2024-2025, with promotional expenditure aggregating Rs. 55,990.22 Lakhs over the same six years, reflecting formidable goodwill and reputation.
The Court also noted that in an earlier decision in Manash Lifestyle Private Limited v. Viraj Harjai [CS(COMM) 704/2024], this Court had held that the depiction of the word PURPLLE with the addition of a second letter ‘L’ results in an arbitrary formation of a mark, so that adoption of the same by a third party in the manner in which the Plaintiff has adopted it would amount to a dishonest adoption.
The Court further observed that Defendant No. 1 had adopted the identical mark PURPLLE together with the logo, the genuine store photographs and the official email address of the Plaintiff, not in any incidental or isolated manner but as the central identifier of a purported franchise programme offered for substantial monetary consideration. The Court recorded that it was prima facie evident that Defendant No. 1 was infringing the registered marks of the Plaintiff and also attempting to pass off its goods as those of the Plaintiff, causing irreparable injury and harm to the goodwill and reputation of the Plaintiff.
Briefly, Manash Lifestyle Private Limited, the Plaintiff, is the registered proprietor of the trademark ‘PURPLLE’ and operates an online beauty and wellness store under the mark, offering makeup, skincare, hair, bath and body, herbal, baby care, fragrance and beauty appliance products. The Plaintiff was incorporated in 2011, holds 62 trademark registrations for PURPLLE and its formative marks across Classes 3, 5, 8, 9, 11, 16, 18, 21, 35, 36, 38, 41, 42 and 44, and is the 102nd Unicorn start-up of India with a valuation of approximately USD 1.1 billion. The Plaintiff also runs 16 offline stores in Delhi under the same mark.
In August 2026, the Plaintiff discovered an impugned advertisement dated Aug 12, 2026, being circulated on Facebook under the name ‘PURPLLE’ and bearing the Plaintiff’s logo, headed ‘PURPLLE – 2026 FRANCHISE OPPORTUNITY’, which held out a purported franchise programme for a consideration of Rs. 15 lakhs. The advertisement reproduced genuine photographs of the Plaintiff’s retail stores without authorisation and routed prospective applicants to a WhatsApp Business Account operated under the name ‘PURPLLE’. The WhatsApp profile described itself as ‘Purplle (Manash Lifestyle)’ and displayed a grievance officer ‘Pawan Kumar’ along with the Plaintiff’s official email, neither of which was authorised. The same mobile number was displayed on Truecaller as ‘Purplle Store’ with the Plaintiff’s logo, with the network identified as Jio.
The Plaintiff reported the impugned advertisement to Meta, but no effective action followed. The Plaintiff thereafter issued a Public Cautionary Notice on its official Facebook page stating that it does not offer any franchise or dealership opportunities for PURPLLE stores. The Plaintiff then filed suit before the Delhi High Court against Defendants, seeking reliefs including trademark infringement, copyright infringement and passing off.
