Safiya Malik

The High Court of Delhi Single Bench of Justice Tejas Karia granted ad-interim relief to the plaintiff by restraining the operator of the impugned domain from using signatureglobal.com or any online platform that imitates the plaintiff’s identity. The Court found that the disputed website reproduced essential elements of the plaintiff’s official site in a manner capable of misleading homebuyers into assuming an affiliation. Observing a prima facie case of infringement and impersonation, the Bench directed suspension of the impugned domain and ordered disclosure of registrant details by the concerned intermediaries. The injunction, which aims to prevent continued misuse of the plaintiff’s mark and online presentation, will remain operative until March 10, 2026.

The dispute arises from a commercial suit filed by a real-estate developer alleging infringement of its registered trade mark, copyright, and trade name. The plaintiff asserted that it has been operating in the mid-income housing segment since 2014 and has continuously used its distinctive mark and website presentation for its projects, communications, and promotional activities. According to the plaintiff, its website features original artistic works, images, design elements, and a consistent visual identity that have acquired recognition among homebuyers and industry stakeholders.

Also Read: Challenge To Interest Rate Not Within Public Policy Of Indian Law: Supreme Court Upholds 24% Contractual Interest, Dismisses Arbitration Appeal In Commercial Loan Dispute

The plaintiff claimed to have discovered in early November 2025 that a third party was operating a website under the domain signatureglobal.com, which appeared to replicate essential elements of the plaintiff’s official website. It was alleged that the impugned site copied layouts, images, textual content, project photographs, contact information, corporate addresses, and photographs of the plaintiff’s Board of Directors. Screenshots and comparative visuals were placed on record to demonstrate the similarities between the two websites.

The plaintiff contended that the impugned domain had been registered through privacy-shielding services and that the defendant was also promoting real-estate offerings on social media using the plaintiff’s mark. The statutory provisions invoked included the Trade Marks Act, 1999, the Copyright Act, 1957, and the relevant rules under the Commercial Courts Act concerning pleadings and documentary filings.

The Court recorded that “the Plaintiff is the prior adopter and continuous user of the Subject Mark” and that over a sustained period the plaintiff had “acquired distinct goodwill and public recognition in the real-estate sector.” It stated that the plaintiff’s market presence since 2014 along with its promotional activities led to the mark being “identified exclusively with the Plaintiff by homebuyers, investors, and industry stakeholders.”

The Court noted that the impugned website had “imitated essential and distinctive element of the Plaintiff’s Website including replication of the domain name, layout, images, textual content.” It further observed that the defendant’s use of the plaintiff’s corporate information, board photographs, and details of sister companies created “a false impression of affiliation” and was “calculated to mislead members of the public into believing that the Impugned Website is operated or endorsed by the Plaintiff.”

The Court stated that the “overall impression created by the Impugned Website is deceptively similar to that of the Plaintiff’s Website” and that such similarity enabled “fraudulent extraction of money from unsuspecting homebuyers.” It recorded that the plaintiff had placed material on record demonstrating that the impugned website mirrored the plaintiff’s home page, videos, project photographs, enquiry window, corporate addresses, and investor images. The Court noted that images on multiple pages of the judgment depicted side-by-side comparisons showing identical placement of trade marks, similar video backgrounds, and replicated layouts of the “About Us,” “Projects,” “Investors,” and “Contact Us” sections (see pages 7–13 showing screenshots of replicated webpages).

The Court observed that the defendant had used privacy services for domain registration and that the registrant information revealed only “Domains By Proxy, LLC.” It also recorded the plaintiff’s submission that Defendant No. 1 appeared to be promoting real-estate projects on social-media platforms using the plaintiff’s mark.

Upon reviewing the submissions, the Court stated that a “prima facie case is made out in favour of the Plaintiff; the balance of convenience lies with the Plaintiff; and the continued operation of the Impugned Website would result in irreparable injury to the Plaintiff’s goodwill, reputation, and customer trust.”

Also Read: Unauthorised Sales After Agreement Ended Attract Liability; Delhi High Court Bars Former Distributor And Affiliates From Selling CREED Products Or Using Mark; Orders ₹37.42 Lakh in Damages

The Court directed that “till the next date of hearing”, Defendant No. 1 and its associates, business partners, legal heirs or any person(s) are “restrained from registering / operating / owning / hosting / publishing / advertising or in any manner dealing with the Impugned Website https://signatureglobal.com/ or any other website, domain, sub-domain, URL, online platform, landing pages, social media pages, mobile applications, or digital listings that impersonate or misrepresent the Plaintiff in any manner whatsoever by using, reproducing, copying or incorporating the Subject Mark ‘SIGNATUREGLOBAL’ / ‘ ’ either as a standalone mark or in combination with any prefix, suffix, misspelt words, transliterations, representations, logos, device marks, domain names, meta-tags, keywords, or any visually, structurally, phonetically or deceptively similar variation thereof.”

“Defendants No. 3 is directed to lock and suspend the Domain Name https://signatureglobal.com/ within 72 hours of receipt of the Notice and copy of this Order.  “Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 shall file an Affidavit in a sealed cover / password protected document disclosing the complete details of Defendant No. 1, as available with Defendant Nos. 2 and 3, including e-mail addresses, mobile numbers, contact details, payment details and KYC details, within four weeks from the receipt of the Notice and copy of this Order.”

“Let the Reply to the present Application be filed within four weeks after service of Notice. Rejoinder thereto, if any, be filed before the next date of hearing. The compliance of Order XXXIX Rule 3 of the CPC be done within two weeks.”

Advocates Representing The Parties

For the Plaintiff: Ms. Kripa Pandit, Mr. Prabhu Tandon, Mr. Christopher Thomas, Mr. Bhanu Gupta, Advocates

For the Defendants: Not stated in the order

Case Title: SignatureGlobal (India) Limited v. Ashok Kumar & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 1209/2025
Bench: Justice Tejas Karia