Fraudsters registered a look-alike domain, posed as Colgate’s HR recruiters, and took “deposits” from job seekers. The Delhi High Court moved fast — injuncting them, ordering the domains blocked and the bank accounts frozen. A template for tackling brand-impersonation fraud.
The scam
Colgate-Palmolive learned from the public that unknown persons had created a fake domain (colgatepalmoliveindia.in) and three email IDs, posing as recruitment/HR employees and soliciting money deposits from prospective interviewees into three bank accounts. Colgate sued.
The arguments
Colgate argued the fake domain infringed its registered trademarks and amounted to passing off — it had used “Colgate” for oral care since 1970, held registrations across classes, and the mark was well-known in India. It sought an injunction against infringement, copyright violation and passing off, plus rendition of accounts.
The relief
By orders of 12 April and 15 May 2019, the court granted an ex parte ad-interim injunction against the unnamed defendants, and:
- added NIXI (the .IN Registry) as a defendant, ordering it to block the infringing domain and provide details of the owner and registering IP;
- when a second fraudulent site (colgatepalmolive.in) surfaced, ordered NIXI to block that too; and
- directed the banks to freeze the accounts and provide the account holders’ details.
Part of a pattern
This isn’t new. In November 2018, the Delhi HC injuncted persons fraudulently using Snapdeal’s marks to defraud customers — ordering registrars to suspend the sites and banks to freeze accounts.
The practical lesson: since it’s usually hard to identify the owners of infringing sites, more companies finding their names used for fraud are going directly to court. While the INDRP exists for bad-faith registration disputes, in cases of domain squatting used to commit fraud in a genuine company’s name, an immediate injunction (with domain-blocking and account-freezing) is the more appropriate route.
The takeaways
- Look-alike domains for fraud infringe — plus passing off.
- Courts order blocking and freezing — NIXI blocks the domains, banks freeze the accounts.
- Ex parte relief against John Does — even where the fraudsters are unidentified.
- Litigation beats arbitration for fraud — an immediate injunction outpaces the INDRP.
Frequently asked questions
What did Colgate obtain against the fraudsters? An ex parte injunction against unnamed defendants, orders to NIXI to block the fake domains, and directions to banks to freeze the accounts and disclose the account holders’ details.
Why go to court rather than use the INDRP? The INDRP handles bad-faith registration disputes, but where a domain is used to commit fraud in a genuine company’s name, an immediate court injunction (with blocking and account-freezing) is more appropriate.
Can courts act against unidentified fraudsters? Yes — via ex parte injunctions against John Doe defendants, with directions to registries and banks to help identify and stop them.
Does a look-alike domain used for a scam infringe trademarks? Yes — using a well-known mark in a fraudulent domain amounts to infringement and passing off, as Colgate established.