The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad-interim injunction restraining several counterfeit sellers and unidentified entities (John Does) from manufacturing, marketing, or listing apparel bearing marks deceptively similar to the Plaintiff's registered trademark 'JOCKEY'.

Recognizing the threat of widespread consumer confusion, the Court further issued a stringent mandatory directive to the e-commerce platform Meesho (Defendant No. 5), ordering it to block and suspend all infringing product URLs within 36 hours.

The Bench also mandated Meesho to unmask the rogue vendors by disclosing their complete Know Your Customer (KYC) data, registered addresses, UPI payment details, transaction records, and IP logs to the Plaintiff within a period of four weeks.

The Bench of Justice Jyoti Singh directed, "Defendant No. 5 (Meesho) is directed to block/suspend the URLs mentioned in ANNEXURE-A to this order within 36 hours from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Defendant No. 5 shall also provide the available KYC details as also other details of Defendant Nos. 1 to 4 such as registered addresses, mobile numbers, UPI details, transaction records, IP logs to the Plaintiff within four weeks from today. Affidavit of compliance shall be filed within six weeks from today."


Advocate Saif Khan appeared for the Plaintiff.

Brief Facts

The Plaintiff carried on a renowned global business of manufacturing, retailing, and distributing undergarments, hosiery, and comfort apparel under the trademark 'JOCKEY'. 

The grievance arose when the Plaintiff discovered that the Defendants were offering undergarments for sale on an e-commerce platform under various brands. A subsequent investigation revealed that one of the Defendants had even applied for the registration of an infringing mark.

Despite the issuance of a legal notice, the Defendants failed to respond and continued their infringing activities. It was further discovered that the Defendants were listing identical products under multiple other marks on the same online platform. The platform operator also refused to de-list the impugned links in the absence of a formal judicial directive, necessitating the institution of the present suit.

Contentions of Parties

It was contended by the Plaintiff that the Defendants were strategically selling their products under deceptively similar marks to dishonestly ride upon the stellar goodwill and reputation of the Plaintiff's well-established 'JOCKEY' brand. It was argued that since the rival products were identical, and the target consumer base as well as the trade channels were completely common, confusion amongst the members of the public was inevitable.

It was submitted that during an online search, the Plaintiff discovered that the Defendants were actively using the online marketplace platform of Meesho (Defendant No. 5) to host and retail counterfeit undergarment products. Specifically, Defendant No. 1 was found selling goods under the infringing brand name 'JOYKE' via a direct product listing link on the Meesho website.

It was further submitted that despite the issuance of a legal notice by the Plaintiff, the continuous sale on Meesho was not halted, and the rogue sellers completely failed to respond. 

Findings of the Court

The Court observed that the Plaintiff successfully established a prima facie case for the grant of an ex parte ad-interim injunction. It was noted that the balance of convenience heavily tilted in favor of the Plaintiff, who was likely to suffer irreparable injury and financial harm if the interim protection was withheld.

The Court further observed that the impugned marks adopted by the Defendants were prima facie deceptively similar to the Plaintiff's registered trademark 'JOCKEY'.

"The impugned marks are prima facie deceptively similar to JOCKEY, the registered trademark of the Plaintiff and is being used by the Defendants for identical products. The consumer base and trade channels being common, likelihood of confusion cannot be ruled out", the Court said.

Given that the marks were being deployed for identical apparel products, targeting the same consumer segment through identical trade channels, the Court held that the likelihood of public confusion could not be ruled out.

The Court directed, "Accordingly, till the next date of hearing, Defendants No. 1 to 4 and 6/John Doe(s) and all others acting on their behalf are restrained from manufacturing, marketing, offering for sale, advertising, hosting, listing, displaying, using and/or directly or indirectly dealing in any manner with the impugned goods bearing the impugned marks...and/or any other mark which is identical or deceptively similar to the JOCKEY trademarks of the Plaintiff, amounting to infringement of trademark and/or passing off."

Consequently, the Court restrained the Defendants from dealing with the impugned marks and directed the e-commerce platform to block the offending links and disclose the Know Your Customer (KYC) details of the sellers.

Cause Title: Jockey International Inc. v. M/S D.R. Kuppraj Tex India & Ors. [CS(COMM) 614/2026]

Appearances:

Plaintiff: Advocates Saif Khan, Shobhit Agrawal and Diya Viswanath

Click here to read/download the Order

Tags: