The Delhi High Court has passed a sweeping John Doe order restraining unauthorized entities from misusing the “TATA” trademark, particularly in fraudulent schemes involving fake dealerships and distributorships.

Justice Amit Bansal, who passed the interim order, observed that repeated incidents of public deception had taken place via domain names impersonating official TATA business portals.

The order came in a lawsuit filed by Tata Sons Private Limited, which alleged that several unnamed defendants were operating deceptive websites using the TATA name in conjunction with terms like “dealership,” “distributorship,” and “consumer” to lure unsuspecting victims.

“The presence of the trademark TATA along with words like ‘dealerships’ or ‘distributorships’ has led innocent members of the public to believe that these are official TATA websites, prompting them to part with their hard-earned money,” the Court noted.

Modus Operandi of the Fraud

Tata Sons detailed how fraudsters would first demand an initial "registration fee" of ₹25,000, followed by escalating demands under various deceptive heads like:

• Agreement Deposit

• Product Deposit

• NOC Deposit

• Travel Costs

• Renovation & Equipment Deposit

• Second Stock Purchase Deposit

Once the victims completed these payments—often totaling several lakhs—the accused would sever all communication, leaving the victims defrauded.

The company also highlighted that the fraudsters would swiftly transition to new websites whenever any one of them raised suspicion or got flagged.

Court’s Directions

In response, the Court issued comprehensive directions:

• Domain Name Registrars must suspend and lock the infringing domain names.

• Internet Service Providers must block the associated phone numbers.

• Banks are to suspend all UPI IDs and bank accounts linked to the accused parties.

Further, the Court empowered Tata Sons to directly approach domain registrars in future instances where suspicious domains containing the TATA mark are discovered alongside terms like “consumer,” “franchise,” “dealer,” etc., and seek their immediate suspension by citing the present order.

“It is important to pass an order that comprehensively safeguards against such proliferation in the future,” the Court said.

Case Title: Tata Sons Private Limited & Anr v. John Doe & Ors