Advertisement

Atif Ahmed

Atif Ahmed is a practicing Advocate, having specialized knowledge in M&A, Corporate Law and Contract drafting. He graduated in Law, from Punjab University, Chandigarh, in 2019, and is currently interning as a Trainee in Business World Legal Community. He is also pursuing a diploma course in M&A and Institutional Finance, which is of special interest to him. Besides this, Atif is highly passionate about fitness, photography and content writing.

More From The Author >>

Delhi HC Directs Google And Vodafone Idea To Furnish Details Of The User Account, In An Online Fraud Case

The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction to Indiamart, and directed Google LLC and Vodafone Idea, to furnish details of the account holder, in a suspected case of online fraud and cheating.

The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction to Indiamart, and directed Google LLC and Vodafone Idea, to furnish details of the account holder, in a suspected case of online fraud and cheating.  

 

Indiamart Intermesh Ltd (i.e. plaintiff), an online business to business (B2B) platform, filed a suit before the Delhi HC, seeking relief of permanent injunction, against one Akash Sharma (i.e. defendant no.1), for allegedly violating its intellectual property rights, and for tarnishing its image. The Delhi HC granted Indiamart an interim relief, directed Google LLC (i.e. defendant no.2) and Vodafone Idea Ltd. (i.e. defendant no.3) to furnish details of the user account, and also asked the Cyber Cell of Delhi Police to enquire into the matter and submit its report. 

 

What were the facts of the case? 

  • Since 1996, the plaintiff has been running an online business, via business to business (B2B) portal, through its website and mobile application, whereby it provides a marketplace for the buyers and sellers to interact with each other, according to their requirements.     

  • In 1996, the plaintiff adopted the mark INDIAMART and has been using the same for his business. It is also registered the said trademark. 

  • The plaintiff alleged that the defendant no.1 (Akash Sharma) has duped his customers by fraudulently using the name/trademark/logo/ trade dress (i.e. Intellectual Property) of the plaintiff. 

  • According to the plaintiff, the grievance that the plaintiff’s customers have brought to his attention are as follows: 

  1. Defendant no.1 (Akash Sharma) is using the website of the plaintiff to dupe the customers of the plaintiff; 

  1. The customers of the plaintiffs, who have been duped by the defendant no.1, were asked to deposit a security money ranging between INR 20,000/- to INR 30,000/-; 

  1. The defendant no.1 is sending emails to various parties, soliciting allotment of dealerships; and 

  1. The defendant no.1 is also misleading the general public, by presenting fake identity card, which portrays him as an employee of the plaintiff. He is also using the brochures and letter pads bearing the same I.D.s and logos, as that of the plaintiff. 

  • The plaintiff alleged that it does not know the exact details of the defendant no.1 as the defendant no.1 appears to be a fictitious identity. And the only details of the defendant no.1 available with the plaintiff, are the Email I.Ds and the mobile numbers, which were used by the defendant no.1 to dupe his customers.   

  

What was the order of the court? 

On, July 14, 2020, the single Bench of Justice Mukta Gupta, after considering all the averments made in the plaint and the applications, and after giving relevance to the documents placed before it, observed that the defendant no.1 has cheated, not only the plaintiff, but also the innocent gullible customers, who got trapped into the allurements of the defendant no.1. 

Therefore, the Court found it necessary to grant an ex parte ad-interim injunction to the plaintiff, against the defendant no.1, and further directed the defendant no.2 (i.e. Google LLC) and defendant no. 3 (i.e. Vodafone Idea Ltd.) to disclose the user details pertaining to the Email IDs and mobile numbers, allegedly used by the defendant no.1, to dupe the plaintiff, his customers, and other members of the general public. 

 

The relevant excerpts from the order of the Delhi HC, are reproduced herein below: 

“7. Considering the averments made in the plaint and the applications as also the documents filed therewith, it is evident that it is not only a case of cheating the plaintiff but also the  innocent gullible customers, who got trapped into the allurements of the defendant No. 1.  It is thus necessary to pass an ex parte ad-interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant No.1. 

 

8. Consequently, an ad-interim ex parte injunction in terms of prayers (a) and (b) of the application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC, is passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant No. 1. Defendant No. 2 is directed to disclose the identity of defendant no. 1 besides the I.P. addresses and other details available with it in relation to the Email IDs i.e. indiamart733@gmail.com, infoindiamart@gmail.com, supportindiamart@gmail.com & Indiamart08@gmail.com. The necessary information in this regard will be given to the plaintiff within one week by the defendant No. 2. Defendant No. 3 is also directed to disclose the user details of the mobile numbers of the defendant No. 1 i.e. 7773833562, 9826027394 & 9617165861 to the plaintiff within one week.” 


The High Court also directed the Delhi Police, Cyber Crime Cell, to enquire into the present case, and submit their report to the Hon’ble Court, before the next date of hearing, i.e. July 29, 2020. 

Click here to view the copy of the order dated 14.07.2020, passed by the Delhi High Court.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in the article above are those of the authors' and do not necessarily represent or reflect the views of this publishing house


Tags assigned to this article:
delhi high court delhi

Around The World

Advertisement