File Copyright Online - File mutual Divorce in Delhi - Online Legal Advice - Lawyers in India

Trademark Disputes and Impersonation

The plaintiff asserted ownership of the trademarks "SEQUOIA" and "PEAK TV PARTNERS" specifically in relation to investment services. This indicates that the plaintiff holds registered trademarks for these names or claims common law rights based on their extensive and exclusive use in the relevant industry.

The defendants were operating through various social media profiles on platforms like Facebook and Telegram. They were using the plaintiff's logo on their profiles and falsely presenting themselves as being associated with the plaintiff. This misuse of the plaintiff's trademarks and branding could confuse consumers and harm the plaintiff's reputation and business interests.

In addition to impersonating the plaintiff, the defendants were also posting false job listings under the plaintiff's name. This deceptive practice could mislead job seekers and potentially cause reputational damage to the plaintiff if applicants associate the false job postings with the plaintiff's business.

The High Court, upon reviewing the evidence and arguments presented, issued a restraint order against the defendants. This order legally prohibits the defendants from continuing their impersonation of the plaintiff, misuse of the plaintiff's trademarks, and posting false job listings in the plaintiff's name.

Impersonating the plaintiff and posting false job listings under its name constitute deceptive practices that can harm both consumers and the plaintiff's business. The court's restraint order helps prevent such deceptive practices and promotes honesty and transparency in business interactions.
The High Court's restraint order serves to uphold the plaintiff's rights, prevent deceptive practices, and maintain the integrity of the marketplace. It underscores the legal consequences for those who engage in trademark infringement, impersonation, and related offenses, while also providing a means for victims to seek redress through the judicial system.

Case Title: Sequoia Capital Operations Vs John Doe
Order Date: 05.02.2024
Case No. CS Comm 103 of 2024
Name of Court: Delhi High Court
Neutral Citation:N.A
Name of Hon'ble Judge: Sanjeev Narula H.J.


Ideas, thoughts, views, information, discussions and interpretation expressed herein are being shared in the public Interest. Readers' discretion is advised as these are subject to my subjectivity and may contain human errors in perception, interpretation and presentation of the fact and issue involved herein.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor - Patent and Trademark Attorney
Email: [email protected], Ph no: 9990389539

Law Article in India

Ask A Lawyers

You May Like

Legal Question & Answers

Lawyers in India - Search By City

Copyright Filing
Online Copyright Registration


How To File For Mutual Divorce In Delhi


How To File For Mutual Divorce In Delhi Mutual Consent Divorce is the Simplest Way to Obtain a D...

Increased Age For Girls Marriage


It is hoped that the Prohibition of Child Marriage (Amendment) Bill, 2021, which intends to inc...

Facade of Social Media


One may very easily get absorbed in the lives of others as one scrolls through a Facebook news ...

Section 482 CrPc - Quashing Of FIR: Guid...


The Inherent power under Section 482 in The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (37th Chapter of t...

The Uniform Civil Code (UCC) in India: A...


The Uniform Civil Code (UCC) is a concept that proposes the unification of personal laws across...

Role Of Artificial Intelligence In Legal...


Artificial intelligence (AI) is revolutionizing various sectors of the economy, and the legal i...

Lawyers Registration
Lawyers Membership - Get Clients Online

File caveat In Supreme Court Instantly