Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Mukta Gupta, J.
Indiamart Intermesh Limited - Appellant
Versus
Akash Verma - Respondent
CS(COMM) 255 of 2020, I.A. 5590 of 2020 (under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC), I.A. 5591 of 2020 (under Section 151 CPC -direction to Cyber Crime Cell, Economic Offences Wing, Delhi Police), I.A. 5592 of 2020 (exemption from filing attested affidavits and
Decided On : 14-07-2020
The court granted an ex parte ad-interim injunction to protect the plaintiff's trademark rights against ongoing fraudulent activities by the defendant, highlighting the urgency of the situation.
Headnote:(A) Commercial Courts Act, 2015 - Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 - Ex parte ad-interim injunction - Plaintiff sought injunction against defendant for infringing trademark and misleading customers - Court found merit in urgency for protection against ongoing cheating activities of defendant using plaintiff's identity - Directions issued to disclose defendant's identity and relevant details. (Paras 11, 15, 16)
(B) Cyber Crime - Direction to investigate fraudulent activities - Plaintiff's allegations regarding illegal use of trademark and duping of innocent customers necessitated prompt action by authorities. (Paras 14, 17)
Facts of the case:
Plaintiff alleged defendant was using the mark INDIAMART to defraud customers, misrepresenting himself as an employee and soliciting money. Evidence of ongoing deception from affected customers was provided.
Findings of Court:
Court granted an ex parte ad-interim injunction to prevent defendant from using the trademark and directed authorities to disclose the identity of the defendant and relevant IP details within a week.
Issues: The primary issue was whether the plaintiff established grounds for an ex parte ad-interim injunction against the defendant for trademark infringement and fraud.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the necessity of immediate action to protect the plaintiff's rights and prevent further harm to innocent customers, recognizing the fraudulent activities outlined in the plaint.
Result: An ex parte ad-interim injunction was granted in favor of the plaintiff against the defendant.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. exemption from serving defendants. (Para 8) |
| 2. plaintiff's claim against trademark infringement. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 3. court's decision on injunction. (Para 15 , 16) |
| 4. urgent action requested from authorities. (Para 17) |
| 5. order to ensure public access. (Para 19) |
ORDER
The hearing has been conducted through Video Conferencing.
I.A. 5594/2020 (exemption)
1. Exemption is allowed subject to all just exceptions.
2. Application is disposed of.
I.A. 5595/2020 (exemption from serving defendants in advance)
3. Plaintiff is exempted from advance service of the defendants in the plaint and the application as per the Practice Directions required for hearing through video conferencing.
4. Application is disposed of.
I.A. 5593/2020 (under Order XI Rule 1 (4) Commercial Courts Act)
5. Additional documents, if any, be filed within thirty days.
6. Application is disposed of.
I.A. 5592/2020 (exemption from filing attested affidavits and court fees)
7. Plaintiff is exempted from filing the attested affidavits in support of the plaint and application(s) and Court fees at this stage considering the Covid-19 situation. The same be filed within one week of the resumption of the normal Court functioning.
8. Application is disposed of.
CS(COMM) 255/2020
I.A. 5590/2020 (under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC)
I.A. 5591/2020 (under Section 151 CPC-direction to Cyber Crime Cell, Economic Offences Wing, Delhi Police)
9. Plaint be registered as a suit.
10. Issue summons in the suit and notices in the applications to the defendants on the plaintiff taking steps through Email, SMS and Whatsapp, returnable before this Court on 29th July, 2020.
11. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff, inter alia, seeking permanent injunction against the defendant No. 1 restraining him from violating the rights of the plaintiff in the mark/name/logo/device of the plaintiff i.e. INDIAMART by infringing the rights of the plaintiff in the trademark and copyright as also passing off the activities of the defendant No. 1 as that of the plaintiff thereby tarnishing the image of the plaintiff.
12. The plaintiff has impleaded Akash Verma, the purported user who is using the mark INDIAMART and duping innocent people as defendant No. 1 and Google LLC and Vodafone Idea Limited as defendant Nos. 2 and 3 respectively.
13. Case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff is running the business of integrated electronic business to business (B2B) portal, which provides an internet based marketplace/platform with free and paid listings of various industry/product/services especially for listing the profile/catalogue of small and middle enterprises sector wherein buyers and sellers can interact with each other for their requirements since the year 1996. In the year 1996 itself, plaintiff adopted the mark INDIAMART and has been using the same for its goods and services. The plaintiff has the registration of the mark INDIAMART in various classes besides registration of its domain name
14. As per the plaintiff, it came to know from the members of the public about the illegal and fraudulent use of the plaintiff's name/trademark/logo/trade dress by a third party whose name from one of the duped customers based
