Upstox Vs. John Does: Court Issues Interim Injunction Against Fraudulent Activities And Trademark Infringement

Summary:

Upstox, filed an injunction suit against John Does (unidentified Defendants) for trademark, word mark, and copyright infringement. The Defendants were alleged to have used unauthorized domain names, WhatsApp groups, Telegram channels, and other platforms to impersonate Upstox, committing fraud and damaging its reputation. The Court granted interim relief, including an injunction restraining further infringement, suspension of infringing domains, blocking of social media accounts, and freezing of related bank accounts.

Case Timeline:

June 2024: Plaintiff identifies fraudulent activities and infringement.

June 5, 2024: Complaint filed for cyber fraud and infringement.

December 24, 2024: Court grants interim relief, including injunctions and freezing of bank accounts.

January 2025: Defendant submissions, including affidavits, are required within a month.

February 20, 2025: Documents to be marked as exhibits before the Joint Registrar (Judicial).

May 20, 2025: Court hearing scheduled for further proceedings.

Issues Raised:

1.Whether the Defendants infringe Upstox’s registered trademarks, word marks, and copyrights?

2. Whether the Defendants were using unauthorized domain names and social media platforms to impersonate Upstox and defraud customers?

3. Whether the Plaintiff suffered damage to its reputation and customer trust due to these fraudulent actions?

Plantiff’s Arguments:

The Plaintiff, RKSV Securities India Pvt. Ltd. (Upstox), presented a strong case based on several key arguments. The Defendants impersonated Upstox using unauthorized domain names, social media platforms, and email addresses to solicit money fraudulently, damaging the Plaintiff’s intellectual property rights.

Upstox further claimed that the Defendant was not only committing a fraud by using the Plaintiff’s brand and intellectual property, but it was also damaging its reputation and its customer trust. In view of the enormity and the fact that fraud has been continuous, Upstox claimed it was severely prejudiced by loss of goodwill and reputation in its brand image, which monetary compensation alone cannot restore.

The Plaintiff further brought to the Court’s notice that the infringement was a continuing cause of action. Upstox became aware of fraudulent activities in June 2024 and filed a complaint for cyber fraud. However, the nature of the infringement being continuing, urgent intervention was required to prevent further damage.

Above mentioned points, Upstox moved an application of ex parte ad interim relief seeking suspension of the impugned domain names immediately followed by blocking the fraud social media accounts and freezing of bank accounts of fraud social media accounts. In support of such a plea, it was contended that on balance of convenience, interim relief needs to be granted so that no further irreparable damage occurs. The Court accepted it and gave the relief to the Plaintiff, which was demanded by him for the protection of his rights and reputation.

Defendat’s Arguments:

As the Defendants were unidentified, the Court directed interim measures and allowed the defense to submit affidavits by January 2025.

Judgement:

The Court granted interim relief, issuing an injunction restraining Defendant No. 1 from infringing Upstox’s trademarks and copyrights. It ordered the suspension of fraudulent domains, freezing of bank accounts, and blocking of social media profiles. Further proceedings are scheduled for May 2025, with continued monitoring and potential action against additional parties.

Analysis:

The Court has analyzed the Plaintiff’s claims that the Defendants have been infringing on trademarks and copyrights. The Court held the Plaintiff’s actions valid in its attempt to protect intellectual property and avoid further damage to its reputation. The Court acknowledged the Plaintiff’s prima facie case of infringement, emphasizing the irreparable harm posed by fraudulent activities. The balance of convenience strongly favored the Plaintiff, as interim relief could mitigate ongoing damage while allowing further investigation. It further stressed the irreparable damage the Plaintiff would suffer without the immediate relief in this digital era were fraudulent activity spreads quickly. It gave careful considerations to the pleas of injunctive relief; including suspension of the infringing domains, blocking fraudulent accounts in social media sites, freezing the bank accounts and such more that were deeming appropriate enough in mitigating harm caused. Also, this case is described to be an ongoing cause, reinforcing its need for expeditious interference to guard rights of a Plaintiff and also interest of public at large.