Delhi High Court Grants Interim Injunction To Akasa Air Against Trademark Infringement And Recruitment Scam Using Fake Domains, UPI Ids

Summary

The Delhi High Court in CS(COMM) 1384/2025 decided on 22 December 2025 granted interim injunction in favour of SNV Aviation Private Limited (operating as Akasa Air) against 26 defendants engaged in fraudulent activities involving the plaintiff’s trademarks. Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora directed suspension of infringing domain names, blocking of mobile numbers and UPI IDs, and disclosure of KYC details of defendants who were impersonating the airline company and extracting money from job seekers under false pretexts.​

Facts

SNV Aviation Private Limited operates under the trademark AKASA AIR, which it has been using continuously since 2021. The plaintiff holds several registrations for its mark in India and other jurisdictions, operates the website https://www.akasaair.com, and recorded a turnover of Rs. 4582.7 crores for financial year 2024-25 till the date of filing.​

Defendants 1 to 18 were alleged to be perpetuating job scams by impersonating the plaintiff and unauthorisedly using its trademarks “AKASA”, “AKASA AIR”, “SNV Aviation”, and related marks, as well as impugned marks “AKASHA” and “AKAASA”. The plaintiff received multiple complaints from members of the public stating that defendants contacted them through telephone calls and emails, falsely representing themselves as agents or employees of the plaintiff and offering purported employment opportunities. The defendants demanded payment of process fees under the false pretext of recruitment, resulting in unlawful monetary gain while causing serious reputational harm and erosion of public trust in the plaintiff’s brand.​

The defendants registered infringing domain names appropriating the plaintiff’s trademarks to mislead the public into believing that the websites and email addresses were associated with the plaintiff. Defendants 19 to 26 included domain name registrars, government entities, and banks whose services were being used or abused by defendants 1 to 18, while defendant 18 was a John Doe entity.​

Issues

The court examined whether a prima facie case was made out for interim injunction restraining the defendants from trademark infringement, passing off, and fraudulent activities. The court considered whether the balance of convenience lay in favour of the plaintiff, whether irreparable injury would be caused if defendants were not restrained, and whether protection of public interest was necessary.​

Arguments

The plaintiff argued that it had been using its trademarks since 2021 and holds several registrations. The plaintiff contended that defendants’ acts of approaching unwary public members, falsely representing employment opportunities, and demanding “process fees” amounted to misrepresentation, deception, and passing off, especially since the plaintiff followed no such practice. The plaintiff sought suspension of infringing domain names, blocking of mobile numbers used to contact victims, and freezing of bank accounts and UPI IDs used for collecting money. The plaintiff also sought exemption from pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 citing urgent interim relief requirements and relying on Yamini Manohar v. T.K.D. Keerthi. No appearance was made on behalf of any defendant at the initial hearing.​

Decision

The court granted exemption from pre-institution mediation given the urgent interim relief contemplated and in light of the Supreme Court judgment in Yamini Manohar. The court restrained defendants 1 to 18 and persons acting on their behalf from infringing the plaintiff’s trademarks and passing off their business as that of the plaintiff.​

Defendant 19 (Godaddy.com, LLC) was directed to suspend and lock https://hrakasaair.com, defendant 20 (HOSTINGER Operations) to suspend  http://akaasaservices.com  and  http://akasaairltd.com/, and defendant 21 (SRS AB) to suspend http://akasaairltd.com/. Defendants 22 (MeitY) and 23 (DoT) were directed to issue directions to Telecom Service Providers to disclose KYC details of defendants 5, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18, and block their mobile numbers. Defendant 24 (National Payments Corporation of India) was directed to ensure disclosure of KYC details and blocking of specified UPI IDs. Defendants 25 (HDFC Bank) and 26 (Canara Bank) were directed to provide KYC details and block specified bank accounts and UPI IDs. Defendants 19 to 26 were directed to comply within one week. The matter was listed before the Joint Registrar on 3 February 2026 and before court on 22 May 2026.​

Analysis

The court found a prima facie case based on material on record, holding that defendants’ acts of approaching unwary public members, falsely representing employment offers, and demanding process fees when the plaintiff followed no such practice clearly amounted to misrepresentation, deception, and passing off. The court observed that the balance of convenience lay in favour of the plaintiff, as irreparable injury which could not be adequately compensated monetarily would be suffered if defendants were not restrained. The court emphasized that the injunction was necessary to protect both the plaintiff’s trademark rights and the interests of the general public being ensnared by the fraudulent scheme.​

The court’s directions demonstrate a comprehensive approach to addressing online fraud involving digital infrastructure. By directing domain registrars to suspend infringing domain names, telecommunications authorities to disclose KYC details and block mobile numbers, and financial institutions to block bank accounts and UPI IDs, the court adopted a multi-pronged strategy to eliminate digital platforms, identify perpetrators, prevent further contact with victims, and cut off financial channels receiving illegal gains. The involvement of multiple intermediaries as proforma defendants reflects the reality of modern trademark infringement cases, where unauthorized activities are facilitated through various digital and financial infrastructure providers. The court’s willingness to issue specific directions to these intermediaries, including government entities, demonstrates judicial recognition of the need for coordinated action across multiple stakeholders to effectively combat online fraud and trademark misuse.