Finding a prima facie case and a risk of irreparable injury and financial prejudice to unwary investors, the Delhi High Court has restrained unauthorised use of Kotak’s brands and impersonation, and directed platforms to remove identified infringing links and disclose operators’ KYC details. Essentially, the Court restrained John Doe defendants and persons acting on their behalf from unauthorised exploitation of Kotak’s names, brands, logos and deceptively similar variants, and from impersonating the plaintiffs or their executives, employees and authorised representatives.
The High Court also directed removal of infringing websites, social media accounts and fraudulent links, specifically those identified in Annexures A and B, and provide the plaintiffs with operators’ names, contact details, identity proofs, photographs and other KYC details. The MeitY and the Department of Telecommunications were also directed to issue necessary directions to internet and telecom service providers to block or remove access to the infringing websites.
Briefly, Kotak Mahindra Bank and its co-plaintiff approached the Delhi High Court seeking an ad-interim injunction against unidentified “John Doe” defendants allegedly using their names and trademarks to run fraudulent investment schemes through social media and messaging platforms. According to the plaintiffs, the fraudsters impersonated employees and authorised representatives, offered fake trading applications, and induced investors to transfer money on promises of guaranteed or high returns.
The money allegedly went into private accounts, after which investors could not withdraw it. The plaintiffs claimed to have received over 100 complaints involving losses ranging from Rs. 1 lakh to Rs. 10 lakh per investor. They alleged trademark infringement under Section 29(2)(c) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and passing off of fraudulent schemes as genuine Kotak offerings.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Vikas Mahajan initially questioned territorial jurisdiction because the plaintiffs and most impleaded parties appeared to be based outside Delhi. After examining information supplied by the platforms and additional documents filed by the plaintiffs, it found that some alleged infringers had Delhi addresses or operated from Delhi, and directed registration of the suit. The Court also found the interim relief to be plausibly urgent and genuinely contemplated, and exempted the plaintiffs from pre-litigation mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
On the injunction application, the Court held that the plaintiffs had established a prima facie case, that the balance of convenience favoured them, and that refusal of interim protection could cause irreparable harm to their interests, besides financial prejudice to the general public and unwary investors. These were findings at the ad-interim stage, not a final determination of the allegations.
