Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Delhi Single Bench of Justice Tejas Karia directed an ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining the unauthorized use of certain marks and ordered the suspension of access to specified online platforms. The Court further directed disclosure of registrant and user details connected to the disputed website and accounts. Defendant No. 1 was restrained from directly or indirectly using the name 'TATA' and 'TATA PAYMENTS' or any deceptively similar variation thereof. Defendant No. 2 was ordered to block access and suspend registration of the impugned website, while Defendant No. 3 was instructed to temporarily block access to listed Telegram accounts, channels, and groups. The Court granted liberty to the Plaintiffs to report further infringing accounts for action and set deadlines for compliance and filing of replies. The matter was listed for further hearing.

The Plaintiffs filed a commercial suit seeking permanent injunction against Defendants for infringement and passing off in relation to the marks 'TATA' and 'TATA PAYMENTS'. The Plaintiffs also sought ancillary reliefs. Plaintiff No. 1 is a private limited company incorporated in India in 1917. Plaintiff No. 2 is a public limited company incorporated in India and is a wholly owned subsidiary of Tata Digital Private Limited. Plaintiff No. 2 functions as the financial services arm of the Plaintiffs’ group, providing payment solutions and financial services. Plaintiff No. 2 holds an RBI license as a Payment Aggregator issued on 01.01.2024 and is also a licensed Prepaid Payment Instrument issuer.

Also Read: Supreme Court Upholds Karnataka HC Partition Decree | Refusal to Enter Witness Box Invites Adverse Inference | Oral Testimony Under Evidence Act Outweighs Revenue Records

The Plaintiffs contended that Plaintiff No. 1 is the registered proprietor of various TATA formative trademarks in India, with earliest registration dating back to 1942. Plaintiff No. 1 holds over 1,496 registrations and owns more than 2,000 domain names incorporating the 'TATA' formative mark, including 'tata.com' registered on 15.10.1996. Plaintiff No. 2 owns the domain 'tatapayments.com', registered on 15.05.2019.

The Plaintiffs discovered in July 2025 that Defendant No. 1 was operating a website under the domain https://www.tatapayment.net/ which incorporated the subject marks and offered digital payment services. Registrant details were masked, but the website displayed a contact number, inactive at the time of inquiry, and email addresses support@tatapayment.net and privacy@tatapayment.net. The site also linked Telegram accounts including the username 'tatatatapay' and a group 'yinduzhifu41' which contained Chinese text and appeared to facilitate overseas payment systems under the name 'TATA Payment System for Rent'. Associated usernames included 'zfxt01', 'yinduzhifuxitong', 'tatapaytech', 'tatapay15', 'tatabusiness_bot', 'tatacaiwu', and a channel 'yinduzhifu15'.

The Plaintiffs alleged that Defendant No. 1 misused the Plaintiffs’ name and marks to deceive the public into believing that their website and Telegram accounts were authorized and affiliated with the Plaintiffs. This conduct was alleged to amount to fraud and deception, with intent to take unfair advantage of the Plaintiffs’ reputation and goodwill.

Defendant No. 3, appearing through counsel, stated readiness to provide details including names, contact details, mode of payment, KYC details, and IP addresses related to the specified Telegram accounts in a sealed cover, subject to the Plaintiffs providing an undertaking to maintain confidentiality.

The Court heard submissions, considered pleadings and documents, and found a prima facie case established. The balance of convenience was held in favor of the Plaintiffs. The Court found that irreparable injury would be caused if interim relief was not granted.

The Court observed: “The Plaintiffs’ name and Marks have been used by Defendant No. 1 with the clear intent to defraud and deceive the public.” It was further stated: “It is apparent that Defendant No. 1 is attempting to defraud the public by falsely claiming to offer digital payment services for businesses and individuals across India and accepting and managing payments under the Subject Marks through the Impugned Website and Telegram accounts/ groups/ channels.”

The Court recorded: “The unauthorized actions of Defendant No. 1, including the creation and operation of fraudulent Telegram groups and Impugned Website could give rise to substantial confusion, leading individuals to falsely believe that the Impugned Website and the Telegram Accounts/ Groups/ Channel are authorized, associated, and affiliated with the Plaintiffs.”

It was further observed: “Defendant No. 1 has attempted to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of the Subject Marks and has also deceived the unwary consumers of their association with the Plaintiffs by dishonestly adopting the Plaintiffs’ Marks.”

On consideration of materials, the Court concluded: “Having considered the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the Parties, the pleadings and the documents on record, a prima facie case has been made out on behalf of the Plaintiffs for grant of an an ex-parte ad-interim injunction. Balance of convenience is in favour of the Plaintiffs and against Defendant No. 1. Irreparable injury would be caused to the Plaintiffs if an ex-parte ad- interim injunction is not granted.”

The Court issued the following directives. It ordered that Defendant No. 1, including its proprietors, directors, promoters, affiliates, representatives, partners, servants, agents, assigns, and all acting in concert with or through it, is restrained from directly or indirectly using the name 'TATA' and 'TATA PAYMENTS' or any deceptively similar variation in relation to business, products, or services as a trademark, trade name, domain name, email address, social media handle, branding, stationery, or otherwise.

The Court directed Defendant No. 2, Cloudfare Inc., to block access and suspend registration of the impugned website, https://www.tatapayment.net/, or any further URLs notified as infringing. Defendant No. 2 was further directed to file affidavits disclosing complete details concerning name, contact details, mode of payment, KYC details, and IP address used by the registrants of the website.

Defendant No. 3, Telegram FZ-LLC, was directed to temporarily block specified Telegram accounts, groups, and channels. Additionally, within four weeks, Defendant No. 3 must provide in a sealed cover the IP addresses, names, contact details, mode of payment, and KYC details of the operators of the listed Telegram accounts, with a copy to the Plaintiffs, subject to the Plaintiffs filing an undertaking to maintain confidentiality.

Also Read: Bombay High Court | Delay Condonation Impermissible Where Review Application Itself Not Maintainable Under Industrial Disputes Act

The Court granted liberty to the Plaintiffs to notify Defendant No. 3 of further infringing accounts, groups, or channels, which shall thereafter be removed or blocked by Defendant No. 3 in accordance with law without requiring fresh Court orders.

Compliance with Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC was directed within two weeks. Replies to the application were to be filed within four weeks after service, with rejoinders to be filed before the next date of hearing. The matter was listed for 24.11.2025.

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Ms. Shwetasree Majumder, Mr. Prithvi Singh, Mr. Rohan Seth, Mr. Prithvi Gulati, Mr. Ritwik Marwaha, Ms. Vanshika Singh, Advocates

For the Respondents: Ms. Anushka Sharda, Advocate; Ms. Manisha Agrawal Narain, CGSC with Mr. Nipun Jain, Advocate

Case Title: Tata Sons Private Limited and Anr v. John Doe and Ors

Case Number: CS(COMM) 817/2025

Bench: Justice Tejas Karia