Delhi High Court Grants Ex-Parte Interim Injunction In Favour Of Hindustan Unilever, Orders Blocking Of 5 Rogue Websites

The injunction was granted by Justice Jyoti Singh:

"Having heard learned counsel for the Plaintiffs, this Court is of the view that Plaintiffs have made out a prima facie case for grant of ex parte ad-interim injunction. Balance of convenience lies in favour of the Plaintiffs and they are likely to suffer irreparable harm in case the injunction, as prayed for, is not granted."

The application was preferred by the Plaintiff- Hindustan Unilever under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for grant of ex-parte ad-interim injunction.

Hindustan Unilever argued that they are popularly known, recognized and referred to, globally and in India, as 'Unilever', which word, apart from being a house mark, also forms a prominent, inseparable and integral part of their corporate names. Plaintiff No. 1 is a subsidiary of Plaintiff No.2.

Plaintiff No. 2 is the owner of various trademarks including the trademark ("Unilever Logo") and has licensed the use of the same to Plaintiff No. 1 in India. Registrations for the Unilever logo and "Hindustan Unilever" obtained by the Plaintiffs have been detailed in para 18 of the plaint and are stated to be valid and subsisting.

Plaintiffs had incurred significant expenditure on promotion of their products/services sold/provided under the Plaintiffs' Marks through advertisements and brand building, which for the year 2020-2021 is Rs.4,737/- Crores.

It was argued that the immense goodwill and reputation of the Plaintiff is evident from the magnitude of the sales revenue and turnover.

Plaintiff then informed the High Court that the defendants are Rogue Defendants who are offering jobs/programs for selling and marketing products of the Plaintiffs in return for monetary considerations, attracting unsuspecting members of the public by utilizing and/or using trademarks of the Plaintiffs.

Information regarding such jobs is made available by the Rogue Defendants through lnstagram ads, social media messaging apps and on the impugned domain name/Defendant No. 1, i.e. https://unileverr1.in/#/home, which blatantly copies the house mark/trademark 'UNILEVER' in order to deceive and lure customers into believing that they have some association/affiliation with the Plaintiffs.

It was also argued that defendants No. 2, 3 and 4, as well as the Telegram Handle @nandanabhasin888 (Defendant No. 5) appear to be acting in concert with each other since the complaint which the Plaintiff had received refers to the interaction of the complainant with the said Defendants.

"Use of the Plaintiffs trademark 'Unilever' by the Defendant No. 1 as a part of its domain name as well as use of the Plaintiffs' Unilever Logo, in an identical manner, is essentially to deceive the public at large. Rogue Defendants' use of the Plaintiffs' Unilever Logo, which is nearly identical to that of the Plaintiffs' Unilever Logo, constitutes infringement of the said trademark, passing off, dilution of the Plaintiffs' goodwill and unfair trade practice," Plaintiff argued

The court found merit in the arguments of the plaintiff and decided to grant the ex parte injunction. It directed DoT and MEITY to issue Notifications calling upon internet and telecom service providers to block access to the such rogue websites. Further, Telegram is directed to block/suspend fake account @nanadanabasin888.

Case Title: HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LTD & ANR. versus UNILEVERR1.IN & ORS

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 413

Click Here To Read/Download Order