Manash Lifestyle Private Limited v. John Doe/Ashok Kumar & Ors.

What happened

Manash Lifestyle Private Limited, incorporated in 2011, runs an online beauty and wellness store and 16 retail stores in Delhi under the mark PURPLLE, with over one million customers and over 50,000 products. It said that it holds 62 registrations for PURPLLE and its formative marks across Classes 3, 5, 8, 9, 11, 16, 18, 21, 35, 36, 38, 41, 42 and 44, the earliest dated 19 December 2014, that an application for a declaration of PURPLLE as a well-known mark is pending, that it owns copyright registrations in its logos, and that its turnover under the mark rose from ₹10,034.99 lakhs in the financial year 2019-2020 to ₹40,190.69 lakhs in 2024-2025. It sued an unknown person, described as John Doe, who operates a Facebook page and a WhatsApp Business account, with Meta Platforms, Inc., WhatsApp LLC, Reliance Jio Infocomm Limited and Truecaller International LLP as defendants 2 to 5, and the matter was received on transfer.

The plaintiff said that in August 2026 its representatives found a Facebook advertisement of 12 August 2026 under the name PURPLLE and its logo, headed PURPLLE - 2026 FRANCHISE OPPORTUNITY, which used photographs of its genuine stores and led to a WhatsApp Business account named PURPLLE, whose catalogue offered a Purplle Store Franchise for ₹15,00,000 with ₹30,00,000 struck through as the earlier price. A person responding as Team Purplle asked for personal and business particulars and, when a plaintiff's representative named a proposed location, said that area and PIN code verification had succeeded and the next stage was document verification; the profile held itself out as Purplle (Manash Lifestyle) and displayed a grievance officer's name and the plaintiff's official e-mail address, and the mobile number appeared on Truecaller as Purplle Store with the logo. The plaintiff had never launched or authorised any franchise programme. It reported the advertisement to Meta on 22 August 2026 without effective action and issued a public cautionary notice on 31 August 2026. It argued that the use infringes its registered marks under sections 29(1) and 29(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and its copyright in the logos and store photographs under sections 14 and 51 of the Copyright Act, 1957, and amounts to passing off, and that the platforms and the telecom provider are necessary and proper parties.

Questions before the court

• Has the proprietor of the PURPLLE marks made out a prima facie case for an ex parte ad-interim injunction against an unknown operator's fictitious PURPLLE franchise offer, and for take-down and disclosure directions to the platforms and the telecom provider?

Why the court ruled this way

Having heard the plaintiff's counsel, the Court was of the view that a prima facie case was made out for an ex parte ad-interim injunction, that the balance of convenience lay in the plaintiff's favour and that it was likely to suffer irreparable harm if the injunction was refused (paragraph 47). The plaintiff is the registered proprietor of PURPLLE with 62 registrations, the earliest from 19 December 2014, and owns copyright in the artistic works in its logos, and PURPLLE is a widely recognised beauty and personal-care brand, as its unicorn valuation of about USD 1.1 billion, its place in industry rankings, its social media following and its turnover and promotional expenditure of ₹55,990.22 lakhs over six years show, and the Court noted that in an earlier case, Viraj Harjai, it had held that the spelling PURPLLE with a second L is an arbitrary formation so that adoption by a third party would be dishonest (paragraph 48). The unknown operator had adopted the identical mark with the logo, genuine store photographs and the official e-mail address, not incidentally but as the central identifier of a purported franchise programme offered for substantial consideration, so that it is prima facie evident that it is infringing the registered marks and attempting to pass off, causing irreparable injury to the plaintiff's goodwill (paragraph 49).

Controlling point

A registered proprietor that shows an unknown operator using its mark, logos, store photographs and official e-mail address to offer a fictitious franchise for a fee makes out a prima facie case of infringement and passing off for an ex parte ad-interim injunction, and the Court may direct platforms and a telecom provider to take down the content, suspend the account, block the number and disclose identifying details.

Order and next steps

The Court granted exemption from pre-institution mediation because urgent relief was prayed for, having regard to Yamini Manohar v. T.K.D. Keerthi and Chandra Kishore Chaurasia v. RA Perfumery Works, exempted the plaintiff from advance service on the first defendant, and registered the plaint as a suit. Until the next date of hearing it restrained the first defendant and all acting on its behalf from carrying on any purported franchise, dealership, distributorship or business opportunity under the names PURPLLE, Purplle Store Franchise, Team Purplle, Purplle (Manash Lifestyle) or any identical or deceptively similar name, and from reproducing or using the PURPLLE mark and logos, the plaintiff's registered artistic works, the genuine photographs of its stores and its official business identity, including on Facebook and WhatsApp. It directed Meta to take down the advertisement URL within 36 hours, to disclose the basic subscriber and IP log details in a password-protected document within four weeks and to file a compliance affidavit within six weeks, WhatsApp to suspend the linked account within 36 hours and to disclose the registration, IP address, login, account creation, payment and advertising details within four weeks, Reliance Jio to block the mobile number within 36 hours and to provide the KYC and subscriber particulars available within six weeks, with a compliance affidavit within eight weeks, and Truecaller to take down the listing at page 68 of the plaint within 36 hours, with a compliance affidavit within four weeks. The plaintiff was to comply with Order XXXIX Rule 3 within two weeks, notice was issued to the remaining defendants returnable before the Court on 20 January 2027, and summons were returnable before the Joint Registrar on 8 October 2026.

Practical implications

A brand owner that finds a fictitious franchise or dealership offer in its name can seek an ex parte injunction against the unknown operator together with take-down, suspension, blocking and disclosure directions to the social media platform, the messaging service, the telecom provider and the caller-identification service, and an advertiser, platform or telecom provider served with such an order must act within the 36 hours and the disclosure periods fixed.

Limits of this ruling

• The order is an ex parte ad-interim order passed on the plaintiff's case as set out in the plaint, and it continues only until the next date of hearing. The Court did not finally decide infringement, passing off or copyright infringement, and the directions to the platforms and the telecom provider are limited to take-down, suspension, blocking and disclosure, without any finding on their liability. The identity of the operator is not established in the order.