Court established that the use of a deceptively similar trademark is an infringement, justifying interim relief.

1. This is an action for infringement of trade mark and passing-o The Interim Application has been moved after notice to Defendants. None appears on behalf of Defendants. In so far as Defendant No. 1 is concerned, the Affidavit-of-service states that Defendant No. 1 has refused to accept service, which constitutes valid service.

2. By an order of even date, Leave Petition has been allowed. The rival marks in questions are “JIO” and “Jio Taxi”. It is stated that Plaintiff is the company which is incorporated in the year 1973 and is India’s largest and most profitable private sector conglomerate with huge networth. The Plaintiff is the registered proprietor of the trade mark “JIO” as well as its variants of which the word “JIO” constitutes leading and essential feature.

3. Mr. Bhagat, learned counsel appearing for Plaintiff has taken this Court through the registrations obtained by the Plaintiff in respect of the word and label mark “JIO”. He further points out that the earliest registration of the mark “JIO” is of the year 2011 and in respect of class 39, which pertains to transport services, the trade mark “JIO” was registered in the year 2012. He would further point out the diversification of the Plaintiff into various industries including telecom industry which shows substantial growth and increase in number of broadband wireless subscribers to 282 million in June, 2017. He would further point out the diversification in fashion e-commerce site “Ajio.com” as well as the online store “JIOMART”. He would further point out the various registrations, obtained by the Plaintiff in respect of mark “JioMart” with the earliest registration being of the year 2012. He would further submit that the word “JIO” forms part of domain name as well as corporate name of various subsidiary and associate company of Plaintiff. He would further submit that in the year 2015, the Plaintiff created and designed stylist artistic label represented in distinct form. He would submit that the Plaintiff’s mark has been recognized as a well-known trade mark.

4. He would further submit that the Plaintiff became aware of the Defendant’s existence in April, 2025 when the Plaintiff came across the Defendant’s impugned domain name as well as website www.jiotaxicab.com which was deceptively similar to the Plaintiff’s trade mark “JIO”. He submits that upon visiting the website, the Plaintiff learnt that the mark is being used in respect of car rental taxi in Jharkhand. He submits that representative of the Plaintiff visited premises of Defendant No. 1 and availed its services which revealed the GST registration certificate. He submits that Plaintiff conducted an internet search which revealed that the impugned domain name has been recently registered on 8^th October, 2020. He submits that it is only for the purpose of obtaining necessary disclosures that the Defendant No. 2 has been impleaded in the present proceedings. He would further submit that the search of the Trade Marks Registry revealed that the Defendant had filed an application for registration of the impugned mark “JIO TAXI” in 2020 which came to be rejected by citing the Plaintiff’s mark. He submits that the statutory rights as well as the common law rights have been prima facie established and there are sufficient disclosures as far as Defendants are concerned.

5. I have considered the submissions and perused the record.

6. The proprietary right of the Plaintiff in the registered trade mark “JIO” is prima facie demonstrated from the Registration Certificates placed on record with the earliest registration being in the year 2011 and in class 39, which relates to transport services, the Plaintiff has obtained registration for “JIO” In the year 2012. The Plaintiff and th