Bombay High Court Extends Ex-Parte Relief To Tata's Trent Limited Against Alleged Infringement Of Its Zudio Trademark

The Bombay High Court has extended ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favour of Trent Limited, an entity within the Tata Group, in a case of alleged trademark infringement, copyright violation, and passing off of its “Zudio” trademark.

Justice RI Chagla had on November 2, 2023 restrained various defendants as well as Ashok Kumar (unknown persons) from using the trademark Zudio and associated artistic work. The court had directed Vodafone, the Department of Telecommunications and various banks to make certain disclosures regarding the mobile numbers and bank accounts allegedly involved in defrauding victims in the name of providing Zudio franchises.

“I find that that a strong prima facie case has been made out by the Plaintiff for granting ex-parte ad-interim reliefs. The balance of convenience is also in favour of Plaintiff. In view of what is stated in paragraph 39 of the Plaint and the foregoing discussion, I am satisfied that giving any notice to the said Defendants before passing the present order would defeat the very purpose of granting any ad-interim reliefs”, the court had observed.

On December 15, 2023, the order was extended till January 4, 2024. This order has been extended again until the next date.

Trent Limited, established in 1952 and formerly known as Lakme Limited, filed a suit against various defendants, including Zudiofranchise.net, for infringement of trademark "ZUDIO," copyright violation of the associated artistic work, and passing off the plaintiff's services as their own.

Trent Limited has claimed to be the registered proprietor of various trademarks, including "ZUDIO," and the owner of copyright in the associated artistic works. The plaintiff has claimed that the defendants unlawfully used the mark and artwork in connection with offering plaintiff's franchise and incorporating them into their domain name.

The plaintiff appended copies of advertisements, promotional material, extracts from its website, and screenshots from social media platforms where its goods and services were promoted. Sales and advertisement figures, as well as related documents, were submitted as evidence of the goodwill and reputation garnered by the trademark and artistic work.

As per the plaintiff, in October 2023, a victim applied for Zudio franchises for two locations by clicking on a link. Having paid Rs. 2,65,500 as consideration, he later realized he was duped by the defendants. Its investigation traced the involvement of the defendants in the fraud, Trent Limited claimed.

Trent Limited has alleged that the defendants used the name and intellectual property of the plaintiff to defraud unsuspecting consumers, falsely representing themselves as employees or associates of Trent Limited. The adoption of the impugned trademark and artwork was dishonest and in bad faith from the outset, with full knowledge of its rights, Trent Limited has claimed.

The court found a strong prima facie case in favour of Trent Limited and was convinced that the delay in providing notice to the defendants might defeat the purpose of granting ad-interim reliefs. The court allowed the plaintiff's request for amendments to include an additional incident of fraud that occurred after the filing of the suit.

The court restrained the defendants from using the impugned trademark, artwork, or any similar trade dress. The court directed domain name registrar Tuscows Domain Inc to disclose details of the person/entity who registered the impugned domain name Zudiofranchise.net. The court also directed Department of Telecommunications and Vodafone India to disclose the owner of certain phone numbers along with other KYC details associated with the alleged fraud. The court order IndusInd bank to freeze a bank account associated with the alleged fraudulent activities and disclose details of certain other bank accounts.

The court emphasized that the order would not be uploaded until all disclosures were made by the defendants and granted liberty to the defendants to apply for variation or modification of the order after providing sufficient notice.

Advocates Amey Nargolkar, Smriti Yadav and Parveen Anand represented Trent Limited.

Case no. – Interim Application (L) No. 30262 of 2023 In Com IPR Suit (L) No. 30195 of 2023

Case Title – Trent Limited v. Zudiofranchise.net and Ors.