Summary
The Delhi High Court has granted a broad ex-parte injunction in favour of Premji Invest against a massive online fraud scheme using fake domains, mobile apps, WhatsApp groups, and social media ads impersonating the investment firm. The Court ordered immediate blocking of the fraudulent websites, takedown of fake apps and posts, freezing of linked bank accounts, and disclosure of the perpetrators’ details. In view of potential harm, the Court issued a dynamic injunction allowing real-time blocking of any future mirror or look-alike websites to protect both the public and the company’s trademarks.
Facts / Background
The plaintiffs, Pi Investment Advisory LLP (Plaintiff No. 1) and Hasham Investments and Trading Company Private Limited (Plaintiff No. 2), are part of the well-known Premji Invest group, associated with Mr. Azim Hasham Premji. Plaintiff No. 2 owns the registered trademarks PREMJI INVEST (word and logo), while Plaintiff No. 1 uses these marks in connection with its investment management business. The Plaintiffs operate their official website at in.premjiinvest.com, maintain original copyrighted content, including logos, photographs, website layout, and operate a professional LinkedIn profile displaying the PI Marks.
The Plaintiffs discovered a large-scale fraudulent scheme wherein unknown persons, including Defendants 1, 2 and 20, were impersonating the plaintiffs and members of their senior management to cheat the public. The fraudulent operation involved:
-
- Registration of deceptively similar domain names: premjiex.com and pladadgoogle.org.
- Creation of fake websites and mobile applications under the name “PREMJIEX”.
- Use of fake social media posts, deceptive WhatsApp groups, and impersonation of plaintiff officials.
- Soliciting members of the public to invest money, which was then siphoned off into bank accounts of several entities (Defendants 8–14).
The Plaintiffs provided evidence of numerous complaints received from duped investors and details of involved WhatsApp numbers, fake applications, fraudulent posts, and bank accounts.
They filed a commercial suit seeking permanent injunction, protection of trademark and copyright, blocking of fraudulent domains and apps, freezing of bank accounts, and a dynamic injunction to address future mirror/infringing websites. They also sought interim relief under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC.
Issues:
-
- Whether Plaintiffs have made a prima facie case for ex-parte interim injunction.
- Whether a dynamic injunction should be granted to tackle future infringing websites and applications.
Arguments of Both Sides
Plaintiffs’ Arguments
The Plaintiffs argued that Defendants 1, 2, and unknown persons (Defendant 20) were engaged in a sophisticated impersonation and fraud scheme by misusing the Plaintiffs’ highly reputed PI Marks and copyrighted materials. They asserted that the defendants’ adoption of the mark “PREMJI”, fake websites, fake mobile apps, fake WhatsApp groups, and deceptive advertisements were aimed at misleading the public into believing an association with the plaintiffs. They relied on screenshots, complaint emails, fraudulent document samples, and bank details to demonstrate siphoning of funds.
The Plaintiffs contended that the fraudulent scheme was causing immense damage to their reputation and causing financial losses to unsuspecting victims. They requested urgent ex-parte relief to prevent continuing public harm and sought extensive directions, including locking of domains, takedown of fake posts and apps, blocking of fraudulent groups, freezing of accounts, and provision of a dynamic injunction.
Defendants’ Position
Most primary Defendants were unrepresented or unidentified. However, counsel for some Defendants appeared and did not oppose, instead accepting notice to ensure compliance with court directions. Counsel for two Defendants also stated no objection to the plaintiffs’ procedural applications for exemptions.
Defendants did not present any substantive defense against the allegations of fraud at this interim stage.
Court’s Analysis
The Court held that Plaintiff No. 2 is the registered proprietor of the word and device marks “PREMJI INVEST,” and the Plaintiffs had placed extensive documents establishing their copyright over website content, logos, and photographs.
After reviewing the pleadings and material, the Court formed a prima facie view that Defendants 1, 2, and unidentified persons (Defendant 20) were using fake domains, apps, and WhatsApp groups containing the mark “PREMJI,” deceptively similar to the Plaintiffs’ registered marks. The unauthorized use of names and photographs of senior management and circulation of fraudulent documents reinforced the plaintiffs’ allegations of impersonation.
The Court observed that such misuse was clearly intended to mislead the public into believing an association with the Plaintiffs, thereby resulting in damage to both the Plaintiffs’ goodwill and the financial interests of unsuspecting members of the public. The evidence of payments made into bank accounts of Defendants 8–14 corroborated this.
Thus, the Court held that the Plaintiffs had satisfied all three elements required for interim relief: prima facie case, balance of convenience, and likelihood of irreparable harm.
Given the ongoing fraud targeting the general public and the reported 80 complaints already received, the Court found that a dynamic injunction was necessary to ensure real-time blocking of future variants of fraudulent websites or apps, to prevent continued harm and delay.
Final Order
The Court granted a wide-ranging ex-parte ad-interim injunction, including:
-
- Restraints on Defendants 1, 2, and 20 from infringing the plaintiffs’ trademarks and copyrighted works, or passing off in any manner.
- Domain Registrar (Defendant 3) was directed to lock and suspend the domains com and pladadgoogle.org, disclose registrant details, and refrain from registering identical/deceptively similar domains.
- MEITY (Defendant 6) and DoT (Defendant 7) were directed to block access to fake websites and apps.
- Google LLC was ordered to take down the fake apps listed in Annexure-A.
- Meta (Defendant 4) was directed to remove deceptive advertisements and WhatsApp (Defendant 5) was directed to block WhatsApp numbers and groups listed in Annexure-B.
- Banks (Defendants 15–19) directed to freeze accounts listed in Annexure-C and provide KYC documents and statements.
- Dynamic Injunction: Plaintiffs permitted to report new mirror or alphanumeric variants of fraudulent websites/apps to DNRs, ISPs, Google, MEITY, and DoT, who must block such content or convey its objections to the Plaintiffs within 24 hours.
- If any legitimate website/app is wrongly blocked, it may approach the Court with an undertaking of non-infringement.
The matter was listed before the Joint Registrar and for further hearing on scheduled dates.
Citation: Pi Investment Advisory Llp & Anr vs Registrant Of Premjiex.Com & Ors on 18 August, 2025, High Court of Delhi, CS(COMM) 846/2025 & I.A. 19993/2025. Available at: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/18907961/
Authored by Ms. Ashwini Arun