Bombay High Court Grants Ad-Interim Relief to Reliance, Halting Use of ‘JIO’ Mark by Cab Operators in Trademark Infringement Dispute
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Single Bench of Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan, issued an ad-interim injunction in favour of Reliance Industries Limited, restraining entities engaged in taxi services from using the company’s registered “JIO” trademark and the associated domain “www.jiocabs.com.” The Court found that Reliance had established a compelling prima facie case of trademark infringement and passing off, emphasizing that the continued unauthorized use of a reputed mark could result in significant prejudice to its proprietor. Accordingly, the defendants were directed to refrain from using the impugned mark or any similar artistic representation until further orders.
Reliance Industries Limited, proprietor of the registered “JIO” trademark across multiple classes, instituted a commercial intellectual property suit alleging infringement and passing off by certain parties engaged in taxi services operating under the name “Jiocabs.” The plaintiff contended that the defendants had adopted and used the “JIO” mark and the domain name “www.jiocabs.com” to promote and conduct taxi operations, thereby exploiting a brand name identical and deceptively similar to its registered and well-known trademark.
The plaintiff submitted that the “JIO” mark, first adopted in 2016 for its digital services, is registered under several classes, including those covering transport and travel-related services. Certificates of registration dating from 2011 to 2013 and valid until 2033 were placed on record. The plaintiff produced exhibits comparing its original artistic work and logo with those used by the defendants, which allegedly bore striking similarity. Screenshots of the defendants’ website, their WhatsApp display picture, and a transcript of online communication were annexed to demonstrate active use of the impugned name for taxi bookings in Dehradun and Delhi, with the website also referencing services in Mumbai.
It was stated that Defendant No. 1 had registered the “www.jiocabs.com” domain, Defendant No. 2 operated the taxi business using the same, and Defendant No. 3 functioned as the domain registrar. The plaintiff sought a permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their associates from using the “JIO” name, mark, or any deceptively similar artistic representation, asserting violation of its trademark and copyright rights.
During the hearing, the plaintiff’s counsel informed the Court that the defendants appeared to have altered the website content and changed their name after receiving notice. The Court took note of the documentary material and concluded that a strong prima facie case had been established, warranting ad-interim protection under the Trade Marks Act, to prevent continued misuse of the plaintiff’s well-known brand.
The Court noted that “the name ‘JIO’ came to be adopted by the Plaintiff, initially for its digital services in 2016. However, the name and mark used by the Plaintiff, all based on ‘JIO’ have been registered across classes.” It further recorded that the earliest registration of the mark was affected in Class 9 on December 9, 2011, and in Class 39 for transportation and related services on September 7, 2012, with the label registration dated January 24, 2013.
The order stated: “The Plaintiff has engaged with the phone numbers provided on the website through WhatsApp… which would clearly indicate that there is an active use of the ‘JIO’ name for purposes of running the business branded as Jiocabs.”
The Court acknowledged that after service of notice, the defendants appeared to have altered the contents of the website, which now redirected users to a different portal. However, the domain name www.jiocabs.com continued to exist. The judge stated: “Having examined the material brought on record… a strong prima facie case has been made out for grant of urgent ad-interim interlocutory reliefs.”
The Court noted their conduct in modifying the website as indicative of acknowledgment of wrongdoing, stating that “they appear to have mended their approach to the use of the brand name and have switched to a new name, but the domain name continues.” Justice Sundaresan concluded that continued use of the 'JIO' brand would “indeed cause grave injury” to the plaintiff and that the “balance of convenience would be in favour of grant of ad-interim relief.”
Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan recorded: “Pending the hearing and final disposal of the suit, the Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 (and such other individuals/entities which are discovered during the course of the proceedings to have been engaged in infringing the Plaintiff's trade mark and artwork) by themselves, their proprietors, servants, agents, assignees and all those connected with the Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 in their business be restrained by an order and temporary injunction of this Hon’ble Court from offering and rendering taxi services or from using in any manner whatsoever in relation to any other services or goods, the impugned domain name/website www.jiocabs.com and the impugned counterfeit mark JIO and/or any name, mark or label identical with and/or deceptively similar to the Plaintiffs trade mark JIO.”
The order also specified the registration numbers and classes covered by the injunction, including the Plaintiff’s registered trademarks under Nos. 2247460 and 3016543 (Class 09), 2247360 and 2391638 (Class 38), and 2391639, 2466113, and 4951548 (Class 39). Each of these, the Court recorded, constituted the foundation for the restraint order.
Additionally, the Court recorded that the defendants, their servants, and agents were restrained “from offering and rendering taxi services or from using in any manner whatsoever… the impugned pirated artwork of JIO (appended at Exhibits R, S & T to the Plaint) or any other artwork which is identical with and/or substantially similar to the Plaintiff’s original artistic work of JIO (appended at Exhibit M to the Plaint), so as to infringe upon the Plaintiff’s copyright subsisting in the original artistic work of its JIO.”
“It is made clear that should the Defendants be desirous of varying, altering or vacating the ad-interim relief granted hereby, the Defendants may appear before the Court and present its say.”
The Court directed that the defendants may file an affidavit in reply within four weeks from the upload of the order, and the plaintiff may file a rejoinder within two weeks thereafter. The matter was listed for further consideration of interim relief on November 28, 2025.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Plaintiff: Mr. Vinod A. Bhagat, C/o. Arjun T. Bhagat & Co., Advocates for Applicant/Orig. Plaintiff.
Case Title: Reliance Industries Limited v. Asif Ahmed & Ors.
Case Number: Interim Application (L) No. 28031 of 2025 in Commercial IP Suit (L) No. 27370 of 2025
Bench: Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan
