Court grants ex parte injunction to protect the beauty brand’s trademark, copyright and goodwill after a bogus online franchise scheme allegedly sought Rs. 15 lakh from the public.
The Delhi High Court has stepped in to protect the well-known beauty and personal-care brand Purplle from what it described as a fraudulent online franchise operation using the company’s name, logos, store photographs and official email identity.
Justice Jyoti Singh granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favour of Manash Lifestyle Private Limited, the owner of the PURPLLE trademark, after the company alleged that unknown persons were circulating a fake “Purplle Franchise Opportunity 2026” advertisement on Facebook and WhatsApp. The impugned material allegedly invited entrepreneurs to invest in a purported franchise and sought Rs. 15 lakh, while displaying the company’s genuine branding, store images and official contact details.
According to the plaint, the fake advertisement was posted on Facebook and linked users to a WhatsApp Business account operated under the name “Purplle,” where the operator allegedly posed as “Team Purplle,” collected personal and business details from interested persons, and falsely claimed that location verification and document verification had already been completed. The WhatsApp profile also allegedly displayed the company’s official email address, info@purplle.com, and the name of a person associated with the company, despite no authorisation for any franchise programme.
The Court noted that Purplle is a registered proprietor of the mark PURPLLE, with 62 trademark registrations across multiple classes, and also holds copyright registrations in its logos. The company placed before the Court evidence of its long-standing use of the mark, extensive advertising, social media presence, retail footprint across Delhi, and significant commercial success, including turnover rising to over Rs. 40,190.69 lakhs in 2024-25.
Finding a prima facie case of trademark infringement, copyright infringement and passing off, the Court held that the balance of convenience lay in favour of the plaintiff and that irreparable harm would be caused if the fraudulent activity continued. The Court observed that the disputed use of PURPLLE was not incidental or descriptive, but central to the alleged scam and designed to mislead the public into believing that the scheme was genuine.
The Court restrained the defendants and all persons acting on their behalf from launching, operating, advertising, soliciting or promoting any franchise, dealership, distributorship or business opportunity under the name PURPLLE, “Purplle Store Franchise,” “Team Purplle,” “Purplle (Manash Lifestyle),” or any deceptively similar mark. It also barred the reproduction or use of the company’s trademarks, logos, store photographs, branding and other proprietary material on Facebook, WhatsApp or any other online platform.
In addition, the Court issued specific directions to intermediaries and service providers. Meta Platforms was ordered to take down the impugned Facebook URL and disclose BSI and IP log details. WhatsApp was directed to suspend the linked account and provide registration, IP, login, account creation, payment and advertising details. Reliance Jio was asked to block the mobile number connected to the scheme and furnish subscriber details, while Truecaller was directed to remove the false listing identifying the number as “Purplle Store.”
The Court also exempted the plaintiff from pre-institution mediation under Section 12-A of the Commercial Courts Act, noting the urgency of the relief sought. The suit will now proceed further, with summons issued to the defendants and the matter listed for hearing on the injunction application.
Bottom Line :
Trade Marks and Copyright - Ex parte ad interim injunction granted against fraudulent use of registered trademark PURPLLE and Plaintiff's logos, store photographs, official email identity and business indicia for circulating false franchise opportunity on Facebook and WhatsApp - Directions issued to Meta, WhatsApp, telecom service provider and Truecaller to take down content, suspend account/block number and disclose identifying particulars of wrongdoer.
Statutory provision(s): Trade Marks Act, 1999 Sections 29(1) and 29(2), Copyright Act, 1957 Sections 14 and 51, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2, Order XXXIX Rule 3, Commercial Courts Act, 2015 Section 12-A, Section 151 CPC
Manash Lifestyle Private Limited v. John Doe/ Ashok Kumar, (Delhi) : Law Finder Doc id # 2985329
