Delhi High Court Grants Summary Judgment In Tata Power Trademark Case | Issues Dynamic Injunction Against John Doe For Misusing Brand
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Delhi Single Bench of Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora granted a permanent injunction in a commercial suit concerning infringement of registered trademarks. The Court held that the defendants had no real prospect of defending the claim and accordingly passed a decree under Order XIII-A of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, as amended by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The Court directed that the interim injunction earlier granted be made absolute and issued further directions concerning the blocking of infringing domains and the transfer of funds from the accounts of the impersonators to the Reserve Bank of India’s Depositor and Education Awareness Fund. The suit was accordingly disposed of against the non-contesting parties, and a decree was drawn.
The suit was instituted seeking permanent injunction, restraining infringement of trademark, passing off, and unfair trade competition. The Plaintiffs discovered that several innocent persons were being deceived by certain Defendants on the pretext of providing services and/or dealerships using names deceptively similar to those of the Plaintiffs.
It was contended by the Plaintiffs that the main contesting parties were Defendant No. 1 (John Doe) and Defendant No. 18. It was submitted that these Defendants had not entered appearance or filed any written statement and had no real prospect of defending the claims raised.
The Plaintiffs submitted that an ex-parte ad-interim injunction was granted by the Court on 14.11.2024 in I.A. 45021/2024 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC, whereby the Defendants were restrained from using the registered trademarks of the Plaintiffs including ‘TATA’, ‘TATA POWER’ and associated logos. Similar directions were passed on 08.04.2025.
The Plaintiffs pressed for a decree in terms of prayer clauses ‘29 (a)’ to ‘(h)’ against Defendants 1 and 18. They expressed satisfaction with the compliance by Defendant Nos. 2 to 17, except Defendant Nos. 10 and 13, and referred to proceedings recorded in the order dated 15.07.2025. They also sought a dynamic injunction allowing liberty to approach the Court to extend the injunction to mirror websites/URLs.
An affidavit of service dated 22.07.2025 was filed, stating that Defendant No. 1 could not be served due to lack of valid contact details, while service on Defendant No. 18 was complete through email.
It was submitted that the Plaintiffs are the registered proprietors of the trademarks in question, and documents in support were filed. Since no written statement or affidavit of admission/denial was filed by the Defendants, the pleadings and documents were deemed admitted under Rule 3 of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018.
The Plaintiffs submitted that the domain name and email address used by Defendant No. 18 mimicked the Plaintiffs’ trademarks. Bank account details were provided in paragraph 20 of the amended plaint, listing accounts allegedly used by the impostor Defendants across various banks including Bank of India, Punjab National Bank, HDFC Bank, and others.
The Plaintiffs prayed for a decree of permanent injunction and directions to freeze and transfer funds to RBI’s Depositor and Education Awareness Fund. They also sought liberty to implead any further mirror websites through a dynamic injunction, relying on the judgments in UTV Software Communication Ltd. v. 1337X.to and Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. v. Skymovies.live.
The Court recorded, "the only contesting Defendants in the present case are Defendant Nos.1 and 18, who have not filed any written statement, therefore, all the averments made in the plaint have to be taken to be admitted." The Court further noted that since no affidavit of admission/denial was filed, the documents are deemed admitted.
"This Court is of the opinion that no purpose would be served by directing the Plaintiffs to lead ex-parte evidence by filing an affidavit of examination-in-chief and the Plaintiffs are entitled to a summary judgment."
Upon examining the submissions and documents, the Court held that, "the Plaintiffs have been able to prove that the Plaintiffs are the registered proprietor of the trademarks '‘TATA’, '‘TATA POWER’' and the associated logos."
With regard to Defendant No. 18, the Court observed, "the impugned domain name and email address used by the Defendant No. 18 makes it apparent that the said Defendant No. 18 has slavishly copied the Plaintiffs’ registered and well-reputed trademarks."
The Court relied on its prior judgment in Su-Kam Power Systems Ltd. v. Kunwer Sachdev, stating, "Order XIIIA, CPC would be attracted if the Court, while hearing such an application, can make the necessary finding of fact, apply the law to the facts and the same is a proportionate, more expeditious and less expensive means of achieving a fair and just result."
"Accordingly, unlike ordinary suits, Courts need not hold trial in commercial suits, even if there are disputed questions of fact... in the event, the Court comes to the conclusion that the defendant lacks a real prospect of successfully defending the claim."
The Court accepted that a dynamic injunction was justified in the present circumstances and cited the judgments in UTV Software Communication Ltd. and Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. to support the grant of liberty to the Plaintiffs to implead additional parties in the event new mirror or redirect websites were discovered.
The Court passed a decree of permanent injunction in favour of the Plaintiffs and against Defendant Nos. 1 and 18 in terms of paragraphs 29(a) to 29(h) of the amended plaint dated 03.04.2025.
The Court directed that, "Defendant No.18 is directed to suspend the domain name www.tatasolarpowerdistributor.com."
The Court further directed Defendant Nos. 10 and 13 to "forthwith file their compliance affidavit in terms of order dated 15.07.2025."
With respect to Defendant Nos. 5 to 14, the Court directed: "Defendant Nos. 5 to 14 are directed to freeze and transfer the funds lying in the bank accounts enlisted at paragraph no. '20' of the amended plaint to Reserve Bank of India’s Depositor and Education Awareness Fund, within four weeks (4) from today, if they have not received any attachment order from any Court and/or enforcement agency."
The Court also ordered, "Let an affidavit of compliance be filed on behalf of Defendant Nos. 5 to 14 within six (6) weeks from today."
Regarding Defendant Nos. 2 to 17 (except Nos. 10 and 13), the Court noted: "the relief sought against the said defendants in this suit already stands satisfied. Thus, no directions are issued against these defendants and the suit is disposed of as satisfied against them."
With respect to prayers for damages and costs, the Court recorded: "Learned counsel for the Plaintiffs states that he does not press for the remaining reliefs i.e., prayer clauses at paragraph 29 (i) and (j)." Accordingly, the suit qua those reliefs was disposed of as not pressed.
Concerning the dynamic injunction, the Court recorded: "this Court is of the opinion that the Plaintiff is entitled to implead any other mirror/redirect/alphanumeric website which provides access to Defendant No. 18 by filing an appropriate application under Order I Rule 10 CPC supported by affidavit and evidence... any website impleaded as a result of such application will be subject to the same decree as passed today."
The suit was accordingly disposed of in the terms recorded above, and a decree sheet was directed to be drawn. Future dates stand cancelled.
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Plaintiffs: Mr. Peeyoosh Kalra with Mr. C.A. Brijesh, Mr. Krisna Gambhir, Advocates
For the Respondents: Mr. Shivam Takkar, Advocate; Mr. Ashwani Bhardwaj, Advocate; Mr. Aishwarya Dobhal; Mr. Sandeep Kumar Mahapatra & Mr. Tribhuvan, Advocates
Case Title: Tata Power Renewable Energy Limited & Ors. v. Ashok Kumar/S & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 1015/2024
Bench: Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
