Delhi High Court Restrains Five Defendants from Using HCL Trademarks in Recruitment Scam

Justice Jyoti Singh Extends Interim Injunction to Cover Recently Impleaded Defendants in Fraudulent Job Racket Case

The Delhi High Court on 24 August 2026 granted an ex parte ad interim injunction restraining five newly impleaded defendants from using HCL Corporation’s trademarks in connection with an alleged recruitment scam. The court found that the company had established a prima facie case of trademark infringement and passing off, with the balance of convenience favouring HCL.

Fake Job Offers Under HCL’s Name

HCL Corporation filed suit against defendants accused of operating a fraudulent recruitment scheme. The scam involved individuals impersonating HCL employees through fake emails, calls and messages, luring job seekers with fictitious appointments and collecting money from them. The plaintiff originally impleaded several defendants and, based on information provided by some of them, secured the impleadment of Defendants 20 to 23 in July 2026.

Subsequently, the State Bank of India furnished KYC details linked to a disputed transaction dated 20 December 2025. This allowed HCL to identify another individual – proposed Defendant 24 – whom the company alleged was also impersonating its employees via infringing communications. The court allowed the impleadment of Defendant 24 and the corresponding amendment to the plaint.

Collusion and Continued Harm

In its application for interim relief, HCL contended that Defendants 20 to 24 were colluding with earlier defendants to represent themselves as HCL employees or agents. They allegedly generated fraudulent emails, messages and calls to grant fake job appointments, and accepted money from unsuspecting members of the public. The court accepted these submissions, noting that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case and that irreparable harm was likely if an injunction was not granted.

Justice Jyoti Singh observed: "Plaintiff has made out a prima facie case for grant of ex parte ad interim injunction against Defendants No.20 to 24. Balance of convenience lies in favour of Plaintiff and it is likely to suffer irreparable harm in case the interim injunction , as prayed for, is not granted."

What the Injunction Covers

The court restrained Defendants 20 to 24, and all persons acting on their behalf, from using HCL’s trademarks – including “HCL” and “HCL Healthcare” – or any deceptively similar marks in relation to healthcare services or other products. The defendants were also directed to destroy all infringing material, including brochures, pamphlets, digital files and forms. Additionally, they were barred from using specific email addresses identified by HCL.

The court ordered Defendant 14 to disclose details of mobile number +91 8389833730 within four weeks and block the number within one week. Similarly, Defendant 15 must disclose and block four mobile numbers associated with the scam: +91 9147758071, +91 9748806561, +91 9599698858, and +91 9147758075.

Next Steps

The matter has been listed for further hearing on 14 December 2026. In the interim, the newly impleaded Defendant 24 will be served summons and required to file a written statement within 30 days. The court also directed HCL to comply with Order XXXIX Rule 3 of the CPC within two weeks.

Justice Singh noted that the plaintiff’s case clearly demonstrated how fraudsters were exploiting the company’s reputation to deceive job seekers, and the interim injunction was necessary to prevent ongoing harm.