Court restrains unknown John Doe defendants from infringing Kotak Mahindra Bank's well-known marks; directs social media and telecom intermediaries to block infringing content and disclose KYC details
In a significant judgment delivered on October 14, 2026, the Delhi High Court, presided over by Justice Vikas Mahajan, granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited and its group company, Kotak Securities Limited, restraining unknown fraudsters (John Doe defendants) from misusing their well-known trademarks "Kotak", "Kotak Bank", "Kotak Securities" and allied marks on various digital and social media platforms.
The plaintiffs, who have been operating in the banking and financial services sector since 1985 and hold extensive trademark registrations for "Kotak" marks in India and abroad, approached the Court seeking urgent protection against widespread fraudulent activities. The defendants were impersonating the plaintiffs and their employees by operating fake social media accounts, WhatsApp and Telegram groups, websites, and mobile applications. These entities were enticing unwary investors with promises of assured and high returns by falsely representing themselves as authorized representatives of the plaintiffs. Many investors transferred money to private accounts operated by these fraudsters and were subsequently unable to recover their funds.
The Court acknowledged the plaintiffs' long-standing use and ownership of the "Kotak" marks and noted the substantial goodwill and reputation built over decades, supported by the plaintiffs' extensive revenue and promotional expenditures. The judgment highlighted the prima facie case made by the plaintiffs, the balance of convenience in their favor, and the irreparable harm to the plaintiffs' brand and the public at large if the fraudulent activities were allowed to continue.
Consequently, the Court restrained the John Doe defendants and all persons acting on their behalf from using or exploiting the plaintiffs' trademarks, logos, names, or any deceptively similar variants in any manner. The judgment further prohibited misrepresenting themselves as the plaintiffs, their officers, employees, or authorized representatives, and passing off their services as those of the plaintiffs.
Recognizing the role of intermediaries, the Court directed defendant nos. 2 to 7, including major social media and messaging platforms such as Meta Platforms (Facebook), WhatsApp, Google, Telegram, X Corp. (Twitter), and LinkedIn, to immediately take down all infringing websites, social media accounts, and fraudulent links identified by the plaintiffs. These intermediaries were also ordered to provide detailed KYC and subscriber information of the persons operating such infringing content to the plaintiffs.
Additionally, the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) and the Department of Telecommunications (DoT) were directed to issue necessary blocking directions to Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and Telecom Service Providers (TSPs) to remove access to the infringing websites and platforms.
The Court also addressed the maintainability of the suit within its territorial jurisdiction, holding that since some infringing parties operate from Delhi or have Delhi addresses, the suit is maintainable in the Delhi High Court.
Significantly, the Court exempted the plaintiffs from the requirement of pre-litigation mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, acknowledging the urgency and seriousness of the matter involving online fraud and trademark infringement.
The judgment marks a critical step in combating digital impersonation and online financial fraud, emphasizing the responsibility of intermediaries in curbing misuse of well-known trademarks and protecting investor interests.
Bottom Line:
Trade Marks Act, 1999 - Protection of well-known banking and financial service marks - Plaintiffs made out a prima facie case against unknown fraudsters misusing KOTAK marks on social media, messaging platforms, websites and applications to dupe investors - Ad-interim injunction granted restraining infringement, passing off and impersonation - Intermediaries directed to take down infringing links/accounts and furnish KYC/subscriber details - MeitY and DoT directed to issue blocking directions - Suit held maintainable within territorial jurisdiction as some infringing parties were operating from Delhi - Exemption from pre-litigation mediation granted owing to urgent relief sought.
Statutory provision(s):
Trade Marks Act, 1999 Section 29(2)(c), Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2, Commercial Courts Act, 2015 Section 12A
Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. John Doe, (Delhi) : Law Finder Doc Id # 3000431
