Delhi High Court: In an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 for an ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining Defendants 1, 2 and 20 from accessing and operating fake domain names, websites and applications using the trade mark ‘PREMJI INVEST’, aSingle Judge Bench of Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J, allowed the application for ex-parte ad interim injunction.
The Court further granted a dynamic injunction restraining any future or continuing infringement of the ‘INVEST PREMJI’ mark by directing the Department of Telecommunication (‘DOT’) and Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (‘MEIT’) to take immediate steps for removal and blocking of any fake domain names, websites and applications within 24 hours of receipt of information from Invest Premji.
Background
Plaintiff 1 (Premji Invest) is an entity incorporated to manage the investments of the Premji Invest Group. Plaintiff 2 is a part of the Premji Invest Group and is the registered proprietor of the trade mark PREMJI INVEST 
The Plaintiffs had discovered that Defendants 1, 2 and 20 were engaged in a deliberate scheme to fraudulently misrepresent themselves as Premji Invest and members of its senior management to the general public to illegally invite investments and siphon off funds from them. The funds were being received into multiple bank accounts operated by Defendants 8 to 14 which appeared to be sham entities.
Defendants 1 and 2 had registered a domain name ‘premjiex.com’ which was ex-facie similar to the domain name of Premji Invest (premjiinvest.com). They had also developed fraudulent mobile applications by the name of PREMJIEX. Defendants 1 and 2 had also placed deceptive advertisements on Facebook and approached individual members through WhatsApp, falsely claiming to be associated with Premji Invest.
Analysis, Law and Decision
The Court opined that Defendant 1 and 2, by using the mark ‘PREMJI’ on their social media platforms and applications were trying to create an impression that their websites and groups were connected and associated with the Plaintiffs and its officials.
The Court further noted that if Defendants 1 and 2 were not restrained from infringing the Plaintiffs’ registered trade mark, it would continue to mislead the public into financial fraud and cause irreparable loss to the Plaintiffs’ reputation and goodwill.
Therefore, the Court held that the balance of convenience lay in favor of the Plaintiffs and granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction. The Court further issued directions for restraining the infringement and passing off of the Plaintiffs’ registered trade marks and copyrighted content.
The Court also granted a dynamic injunction allowing the Plaintiffs to approach the DOT and MEIT if any similar variant of the websites or mobile applications of Defendants 1 and 2, which has not already been blocked or removed by the operation of the instant order, is found operational. The Plaintiffs were also at liberty to approach the concerned DNRs/ISPs and Google LLC for taking down any websites and applications from play store on a real time basis without any delay. The DOT and MEIT were directed to issue blocking orders within 24 hours from receipt of communication from the Plaintiffs. The concerned DNRs/ISPs and Google LLC were also directed to take steps to block the concerned websites and applications within 24 hours.
[PI Investment Advisory LLP v. Registrant of Premjiex.com, CS(COMM) No. 846 of 2025, decided on 18-8-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Plaintiff: Anuj Berry, Anusha Ramesh, Gauri Pasricha, Nitya Jain, Advocates
For the Defendants: Varun Pathak, Swati Agarwal, Shashank Mishra, Shivika Mattooa, Rithika Mathur, Gaurav Barathi (SPC), Rishav Dubey, Srika Selvam, Harsh Gupta, Advocates