Delhi High Court Grants Injunction to JSW MG Motor Against Fake Dealership Websites

The Delhi High Court has come down heavily on a racket of fake online car dealerships, granting an interim injunction to JSW MG Motor India Private Limited and its parent company SAIC Motor against three fraudulent websites that were using the famous MG brand to dupe unsuspecting members of the public. Justice Jyoti Singh, in her order dated September 3, 2026, not only restrained the operators from using the MG marks but also directed domain registrars to suspend the impugned domains within 36 hours and placed a lien of ₹14.55 lakh on a bank account used to stash the ill-gotten money.

The Racket Unveiled: A Web of Deception

The case came to light in May 2026 when members of the public began contacting MG Motor's representatives about suspicious emails and advertisements offering dealership authorizations. Upon investigation, the company discovered three domains – mgmotordealership.net, mgmotorco.in, and mgmotordealership.com – that were replicating the look and feel of MG Motor's official website, complete with the iconic MG logo and product images.

One of these domains, mgmotordealership.com, was particularly sophisticated, hosting a fully functional dealership portal that included a "Become a Dealer" application form collecting personal and business details from hopeful entrepreneurs. The website even bore a copyright legend in the name of "MG Motor India Private Limited" , adding to its veneer of authenticity. The court noted that the domains were used to send emails from addresses like support@mgmotordealership.net, and one customer was tricked into paying ₹12,000 as advance money to secure a dealership, depositing the amount in an Indian Overseas Bank account opened in the name of "MG Motors".

Swift Judicial Intervention

Seeking urgent relief, the plaintiffs moved the Delhi High Court, which granted them exemption from pre-institution mediation and issued summons to the defendants. After hearing counsel Mr. Saif Khan, the court found a strong prima facie case of trademark infringement and passing off.

"Plaintiffs are the registered proprietor of the MG marks in relation to automobiles and allied goods and services and have been carrying on business in India under the Morris Garages ‘MG’ brand since 2017 and through predecessors-in-interest, they hold a legacy which goes over 100 years," the court observed.

Justice Singh further noted that the defendants' use of identical MG marks was causing confusion among the public, with people believing that the dealerships were genuinely on offer from MG Motor. "The intent of using the MG marks for offering dealership services is only to encash on the formidable reputation and goodwill of the Plaintiffs so as to make unlawful monetary gains by misrepresenting to members of public that the dealerships are being offered by or on behalf of the Plaintiffs," the court said.

Comprehensive Directions Issued

The court's order went beyond simply blocking the websites. It directed:

  • Defendant No. 1 (operator of mgmotordealership.net), Defendant No. 2 (mgmotorco.in), and Defendant No. 3 (mgmotordealership.com) are restrained from using the MG marks in any form, including in domain names, email IDs, social media handles, and WhatsApp display pictures.
  • Domain registrars BigRock Solutions Ltd., Endurance International Group India Pvt. Ltd., and GoDaddy.com, LLC are to suspend the respective domains within 36 hours and disclose all details of the purchasers.
  • Domains By Proxy, LLC, the proxy registration service for one of the domains, must reveal the identity of its client.
  • Indian Overseas Bank is to mark a lien of ₹14.55 lakh on account number 402102000000003 and provide transaction history and KYC details.
  • The Department of Telecommunications must share details of phone numbers 8981678447, 8769934679, and 7404652744.
  • Google LLC is to disclose information related to the email ID kumaransnt5@gmail.com.

Legal Implications

The judgment reinforces the protection afforded to registered trademark owners against cybersquatting and phishing-like operations using their brand identity. By recognizing the confusion caused by the fraudulent websites as prima facie infringement under Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, the court has set a strong precedent for swift action against digital impersonation.

The matter is next listed before the court on October 27, 2026, for further proceedings. Until then, the injunction remains in force.