Delhi HC issues dynamic injunction to TATA against trademark infringement
The use of the TATA trademark alongside words like "dealership," "distributorship," and "consumer" misled the public into believing these were official platforms, leading to significant monetary losses.
ADVERTISEMENT
The Delhi High Court has granted a dynamic injunction in favour of TATA Sons Private Limited and TATA Consumer Products, enabling them to directly request Domain Name Registrars (DNRs) to block fraudulent websites misusing the TATA trademark, reports Bar & Bench.
The landmark order, passed by Justice Amit Bansal, comes after the TATA companies approached the Court with evidence of a widespread scam involving fake websites offering non-existent dealership and distributorship opportunities under the TATA brand name.
The Court observed that the fraud was both systemic and exploitative. "A review of the evidence filed by the plaintiffs demonstrates that the repeated instances of duping of customers has occurred through domains that have claimed to offer fake dealerships/distributorships and the presence of the trademark TATA along-with the word ‘dealerships'/'distributorships," the Court noted in the report.
The use of the TATA trademark alongside words like "dealership," "distributorship," and "consumer" misled the public into believing these were official platforms, leading to significant monetary losses.
The scam reportedly came to light in January 2025 when TATA began receiving multiple complaints from individuals who had paid substantial sums under the illusion of securing a TATA dealership. The fraud typically began with a Rs 25,000 "registration fee" and escalated to demands for lakhs of rupees under various labels such as "Agreement Deposit," "Product Deposit," "NOC Deposit," "Travel," and even "Renovation & Equipment Deposit."
After extracting payments, the fraudsters would vanish - cutting off all communication with the victims. TATA's internal investigation uncovered numerous websites using the same modus operandi, indicating a networked scam exploiting the company's strong brand recognition, the report added.
Taking cognizance of the “comprehensive nature of the fraud scheme,” the Court issued a sweeping restraining order against unknown (John Doe) defendants and their associates. The order prohibits them from using the TATA trademark across digital and physical formats, including websites, domain names, social media handles, email addresses, and even business documents.
Significantly, the order also empowers TATA to bypass the need for new court proceedings each time a fraudulent website appears. The Court has allowed the company to directly notify domain registrars to suspend or lock any future domain name containing "TATA" in conjunction with specific trigger words such as “consumer,” “franchise,” “dealer,” or “distributorship.”
According to the report, Justice Bansal stressed the importance of a proactive and multi-layered enforcement mechanism. The Court noted this approach as going beyond a typical dynamic injunction, describing it informally as a “dynamic plus plus injunction” - an anticipatory legal remedy designed to counter repeat offenses under evolving guises.
Domain registrars have been directed to act in accordance with the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, and ensure timely compliance.
The matter will next be heard on November 11, 2025, while a compliance and service status hearing before the Joint Registrar is set for September 8.
