- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
Delhi High Court Orders Razing Fake Websites, Apps and Accounts of IKEA Trademark Used To Swindle People
Delhi High Court Orders Razing Fake Websites, Apps and Accounts of IKEA Trademark Used To Swindle People
The Swedish conglomerate stated that scamsters were conning people with false promises of guaranteed huge returns on investments
The Delhi High Court has ordered to extinguish deceptive websites, mobile applications, WhatsApp accounts, groups and phone numbers being used to lure people by misusing the trademark of IKEA.
In the Inter IKEA Systems BV v John Deo And Ors case, the bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula also restrained the unknown (John Doe) people from using the IKEA trademark in any manner for their domain names, websites, mobile apps or social media handles.
The court’s order read, “Defendants Nos.1 and 2 (people cheating common people in the name of IKEA), and all persons acting on their behalf, are restrained from using the plaintiff’s registered IKEA/trademarks and/or their variations, as a part of their domain names, websites, mobile apps, social media handle names/profiles credentials/description, promotional/business activities on digital or print media, bank accounts and/or any business papers that would amount to infringement and passing off of the plaintiff’s registered trademarks.”
The bench also sought details of the people operating the websites to be submitted to the court in a sealed cover.
IKEA had moved the court stating that scamsters were using its name and trademark to dupe people and as a result, gullible people were losing significant amounts of money. People were being misled into investing hugely on the pretext of securing a steady income from IKEA. The imitation sites and apps were used as money-making platforms, guaranteeing returns of up to 200 percent of the invested amount within 35 days.
The judge passed the interim order, ruling that prima facie, the defendants infringed IKEA’s trademark to the detriment of the company’s goodwill and standing in the market.
Advocates Tanya Varma, Aiswarya Debadarshini, Rohan Krishna Seth and Srinivas Venkat appeared for IKEA.
Nidhi Raman, the standing counsel for the Central government, along with advocates Zubin Singh and Rishav Dubey appeared for the Government of India.