The Delhi High Court has granted relief to Akasa Air by granting an injunction restraining infringing entities from continuing fraudulent job scams by impersonating the aviation company. The High Court held that such acts of offering employment and demanding “process fees” when the Company followed no such practice amounted to misrepresentation.

The High Court was considering a suit filed for a permanent injunction restraining the infringing defendants from the infringement of trademark, passing off, unfair competition, rendition of accounts, damages etc.

The Single Bench of Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora held, “The acts of the infringing Defendants in approaching unwary members of the public, falsely representing that they are offering employment on behalf of the Plaintiff, and demanding “process fees” for such employment, when the Plaintiff admittedly follows no such practice clearly amounts to misrepresentation, deception, and passing off.”



Advocate Essenese Obhan represented the Petitioner.

Factual Background

The Plaintiff, SNV Aviation Private Limited, claimed that it is a well-known and esteemed airline company and has been consistently serving the travel industry with distinction. It was claimed that the Plaintiff has, under the Plaintiff's trademarks, made extensive sales running into crores of rupees over the past years. It was alleged that the Defendants are colluding and perpetuating job scams by impersonating the Plaintiff and unauthorisedly using the Plaintiff's trademarks "AKASA", "AKASA AIR", "SNV Aviation" etc. as well as the impugned marks "AKASHA" and "AKAASA", in an attempt to cheat and extract money from various unwary individuals. The Plaintiff had received multiple emails and complaints from several members of the public stating that the Defendants had contacted them through telephone calls and emails, falsely representing themselves as agents or employees of the Plaintiff company and offering purported employment opportunities. In the course of such communications, the said defendants demanded payment of “process fees” under the false pretext of recruitment.

The plaintiff also sought suspension of the infringing domain names, which the Defendants had registered to mislead the unwary public into believing that the websites and email addresses associated with these domain names are associated with the Plaintiffs. In this application, the Plaintiff sought suspension of these domain names. The Plaintiff also sought blocking of the mobile numbers, account/UPI Ids, through which the infringing Defendants had approached the public and the bank used by the infringing Defendants for collecting monies. The Plaintiff sought the blocking of said mobile numbers and bank account/UPI Ids. Some of the defendants (19 to 26) were domain name registrars, government entities and banks who were not alleged to be infringers themselves, their services were being used/abused by the Defendants (1 to 18), to carry out the impugned activities. Defendant 18 was a John Doe entity.

Reasoning

On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench found that a prima facie case was made out in favour of the Plaintiff. The Bench found that the acts of the infringing Defendants in offering employment on behalf of the Plaintiff, and demanding “process fees”amounted to misrepresentation, deception, and passing off.

“The balance of convenience lies in favour of the Plaintiff, and if the Defendants are not restrained, the Plaintiff would suffer irreparable injury which cannot be adequately compensated in terms of money. The injunction is also necessary to protect the interests of the general public who are being ensnared by the infringing Defendants”, it held.

Thus, granting an injunction restraining the Defendants from continuing such fraudulent activities, the Bench restrained the Defendants from infringing the Plaintiff’s trademarks, and any mark identical and/or deceptively similar to the Plaintiff’s trademarks as well as passing off their business as/for the business of the Plaintiff on any email address, domain name, letter heads, offer letters etc., in any manner whatsoever. The Bench also ordered, “Defendant No.19/ Godaddy.com, LLC is directed to suspend and lock domain name, https://hrakasaair.com.”

The Bench also directed MeitY and DoT to issue necessary directions to Telecom Service Providers (TSPs) to disclose all the KYC details of the Defendants as well as block their mobile numbers.

Cause Title: SNV Aviation Private Limited v. Alaska Aviation Academy Private Limited (Case No.: CS(COMM) 1384/2025)

Appearance

Petitioner: Advocates Essenese Obhan, Ayesha Guhathakurta, Urvika Aggarwal

Click here to read/download Order


Delhi High CourtJustice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.