Delhi High Court Issues John Doe Order in Trademark Infringement Case Against Fraudulent Websites

In a significant legal development, the Delhi High Court has issued a John Doe order in support of the Indian Hotels Company, a member of the TATA Group, in a trademark infringement lawsuit against several unidentified fraudulent websites. Justice Sanjeev Narula, presiding over the case, issued a summons following the plaintiff's complaint.

The court's ruling prohibits multiple fraudulent websites' unauthorized use of the registered trademark "Ginger" for hotel reservations. The order restrains "Defendant No. 1 and any other person acting for/on their behalf" from utilizing Plaintiff's registered trademarks or any deceptively similar marks, emphasizing the severity of trademark infringement and its legal repercussions.

Furthermore, the court has banned the unidentified parties involved in the lawsuit from reproducing or publishing copyrighted photos of the GINGER Hotel premises.

The lawsuit stems from numerous complaints received by the Indian Hotels Company, alleging fraud perpetrated through various websites offering hotel booking services without authorization. The plaintiff argued that these websites falsely represented the legitimacy of their services, leading unsuspecting clients to make reservations through them.

The court found the defendants to have engaged in deliberate and fraudulent behaviour, tarnishing the plaintiff's well-established goodwill and reputation associated with the "GINGER" trademark and brand.

As a result of the court's decision, access to the domain names of the contested websites has been suspended, and Axis Bank, Yes Bank, and ICICI Bank have been instructed to halt or freeze activity in the corresponding bank accounts linked to the UPI IDs associated with the defendants.

This ruling not only underscores the court's firm stance on trademark infringement but also serves as a warning to those seeking to exploit established brands for fraudulent purposes. The detailed account of the defendants' deceptive activities provides insight into the court's rationale behind its decision, aiming to protect the integrity of trademarks and prevent fraudulent practices in the commercial sphere.