Summary
Wipro Limited successfully secured a permanent injunction against several defendants for trademark infringement and passing off in a court case in Bangalore. The case involved fraudulent online activities claiming false affiliation with Wipro, prompting legal action. The court recognized Wipro's trademark as well-known and distinctive, granting protection under intellectual property laws. The judgment restrains the defendants from using Wipro's trademark, establishing a precedent for protecting intellectual property online.
This case deals with a permanent injunction sought by Wipro Limited (Wipro) before the XVIII Additional City Civil Court, Bangalore, against several Defendants for trademark infringement and passing off.
Case Background
Wipro’s Cyber Forensic team discovered a fraudulent online presence using the domain <grh888.in> and Telegram channel Gold Rush Team-25. The impugned domain, its corresponding websites (https://www.grh888.in and https:grh888.in/#/) and the channel were being used to mislead the public into believing that Wipro was involved in part-time recruitment schemes, thus prompting legal action.
Defendant No. 1 (Telegram FZ LLC) and Defendant No. 2 (GoDaddy LLC) were removed from the case after they complied with the Court’s order, stating they would prevent the infringement in the future. Defendant No. 3 (National Internet Exchange of India) and Defendant No. 5 (IP Telecom) were also deleted from the suit. Hence, the suit proceeded against Defendant No. 4 (Guo Ji Jin Rong Gong Si), the registrant of the impugned domain, who remained absent, and Defendant No. 6 (John Doe).
Analysis and Reasoning
The Court found that the trademark ‘Wipro’ was a well-known and distinctive mark, based on its trademark certificates, awards, recognitions, and more, and hence were entitled to protection under intellectual property laws. While examining the screenshots of the impugned domain, websites, and Telegram channel, the misuse of Wipro’s trademark was evident. It was concluded that Defendant No. 4 was infringing on Wipro’s trademark by falsely claiming affiliation with Wipro and misleading the public.
Conclusion
The suit was decreed in part, with costs awarded to Wipro. The permanent injunction was granted as requested thereby restraining Defendant No. 4, 6, or anyone on their behalf from infringing and passing off the ‘Wipro’ trademark in any manner. This judgment protects Wipro’s trademark from further misuse and sets a precedent for defending intellectual property rights in online infringement cases.
Citation: WIPRO LIMITED vs. Telegram FZ LLC, In the Court of the XVIII Additional City Civil Judge at Bangalore City, OS No. 1203/2021 on 3rd February 2025. Available at: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/198707364/
Article and Accessibility review: Gaurav Mishra
You Might Also Want To Read
