SignatureGlobal (India) Limited v. Ashok Kumar/John Doe & Ors.

What happened

SignatureGlobal (India) Limited, which the order describes as a publicly listed real estate developer working across the National Capital Region and the rest of North India on affordable, mid-income and premium residential and commercial projects, sued a defendant described as Ashok Kumar or John Doe (defendant no. 1) and seven registrars and service providers (defendants 2 to 8) for infringement of its trade marks and copyright and for passing off. It pleaded that it has delivered more than 17.9 million square feet in more than 52 projects for over 41,000 customers, that it is the registered proprietor of the SIGNATUREGLOBAL marks, including in Class 36 for real estate affairs and Class 37 for building construction and development services, and that it has used them continuously since their adoption.

The plaintiff said that defendant no. 1 operates six websites whose domain names take SIGNATUREGLOBAL as the dominant element and add only descriptive or geographical words such as Builders, Floors, Projects, Gurugaon and Greater Noida, and three further websites that reproduce its copyrighted project renders, photographs, written content, promotional material, project descriptions and maps for a luxury residential project developed in collaboration with Tonino Lamborghini, falsely suggesting an association with it. It said that it found the sites in an online investigation of unauthorised use of its intellectual property, that the registrant details are concealed or masked in the WHOIS records so that it cannot identify the persons responsible, that defendant no. 1 has no licence or authority, and that use of identical marks for identical services causes confusion, infringes its registered marks under section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, amounts to passing off and harms its goodwill. Counsel for GoDaddy appeared for defendants 2 and 3 and accepted summons.

Questions before the court

• Has the developer made out a prima facie case for an ex parte ad-interim injunction against an unidentified operator of websites that use its SIGNATUREGLOBAL marks and copy its project material, with domain locking and disclosure directions to the registrars?

Why the court ruled this way

The Court heard counsel for the plaintiff, perused the record and was of the view that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case for an ex parte ad-interim injunction, that the balance of convenience lay in its favour and that irreparable loss would be caused if the relief were not granted (paragraph 26). The order rests on the matters the plaintiff set out: the registered SIGNATUREGLOBAL marks and their continuous use, domain names that take the mark as their dominant part, the reproduction of its renders, content and logos for a branded residential project with a suggestion of affiliation, the absence of any licence, and the masked registrant details that stop it from identifying the operator (paragraphs 21-25). On that case the use of identical marks for identical services was recorded as causing confusion among the public and the trade and as infringement under section 29 and passing off (paragraph 25).

Because urgent relief was sought, the Court exempted the plaintiff from pre-institution mediation under section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, having regard to the Supreme Court's decision in Yamini Manohar v. T.K.D. Keerthi and the Division Bench decision in Chandra Kishore Chaurasia v. RA Perfumery Works (paragraph 4). The order gives its reasons on the injunction briefly and does not discuss other authorities.

Controlling point

Where a registered proprietor shows identical marks and copied project material on websites whose operator hides behind masked registration details, a prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable harm support an ex parte ad-interim injunction against the operator, with directions to the registrars to lock and suspend the domains and to disclose the operator's details.

Order and next steps

The Court allowed the application for exemption from pre-institution mediation and the application to place additional documents on record, registered the plaint as a suit and issued summons, returnable before the Joint Registrar on 6 October 2026, with the written statement of defendant no. 1 due within 30 days of receipt of summons and the replication within 30 days of the written statement. It issued notice on the injunction application, returnable before the Court on 21 January 2027. Until the next date of hearing it restrained defendant no. 1 and those acting on its behalf from registering, operating, hosting, publishing, advertising or in any other manner dealing with the nine domain names given in the plaint, and with any other website, domain, sub-domain, URL, online platform, landing page or digital listing that incorporates the SIGNATUREGLOBAL marks, alone or with a prefix, suffix, misspelling, transliteration, logo, device mark, meta tag or keyword, or a deceptively similar mark or copyright work, get-up or trade dress, amounting to infringement of trade mark and copyright or passing off.

It directed the registrars named in the order to lock and suspend the domain names allotted to each of them in the two annexures within 72 hours of receiving the order. GoDaddy told the Court that one domain had expired on 15 August 2026 and that it was unsure of its redemption status, and the Court gave it liberty to apply if it cannot comply for that domain. Defendants 2 to 8 were to disclose, in sealed covers or password-protected documents, the available details of defendant no. 1, including e-mail address, mobile number, contact, payment and KYC details, within four weeks, and to file compliance affidavits within six weeks. The plaintiff was to comply with Order XXXIX Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure within two weeks.

Practical implications

A brand owner dealing with look-alike websites run by a hidden operator can ask for an ex parte injunction together with directions to the registrars to lock and suspend the domains and to disclose registrant, payment and KYC details in a sealed cover, and should plead its registrations, the domain names and the copied material specifically. Registrars served with such an order must act within 72 hours and can seek liberty if a domain has already expired.

Limits of this ruling

• This is an ex parte ad-interim order that operates only until the next date of hearing and records the plaintiff's case without a final finding on infringement or passing off. It gives brief reasons on the plaintiff's pleadings and documents and does not decide whether any registrar or service provider has any liability, its directions being confined to locking, suspension and disclosure. The domain names allotted to each registrar are set out in annexures to the order, and the order names the same registrar as defendant no. 3 in one paragraph and as defendant no. 2 in another, so the annexures and the service record should be checked when applying it.