In a recent ruling, the Bombay High Court bench of Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan granted an ad interim injunction in favour of Reliance Industries Limited, restraining certain parties from using its registered “JIO” trademark in connection with taxi services offered under the domain name www.jiocabs.com.

Background of the Case

The matter arose from a commercial intellectual property suit filed by Reliance Industries Limited, which owns the “JIO” trademark registered across multiple classes under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The Defendants were found to be using the name “JIO” in connection with taxi services and had registered the website www.jiocabs.com. Reliance argued that this amounted to trademark infringement and passing off, as the Defendants’ usage of the “JIO” name and artwork was identical or deceptively similar to its registered marks and original artistic works.

The company highlighted that the “JIO” mark was adopted in 2016 for its digital services but had been registered much earlier — the earliest registration dating back to December 9, 2011, under Class 9, with subsequent registrations in Class 39 covering transport and travel arrangements from 2012. Reliance placed on record exhibits showing the Defendants’ WhatsApp display pictures, promotional material, and screenshots that carried the infringing artwork.

It was also brought to the Court’s attention that even after receiving legal notice, the Defendants continued to hold the jiocabs.com domain name, despite modifying some website content. Counsel for Reliance contended that such conduct clearly amounted to infringement and warranted urgent injunctive relief to prevent ongoing misuse of a well-known brand.

The Court’s Observations

After examining the pleadings, trademark registrations, and comparative material produced, the Court observed that Reliance had made out a strong prima facie ]case for protection of its intellectual property. It noted that although the Defendants appeared to have changed their business name following service of the proceedings, the domain name continued to exist, which justified intervention.

Justice Sundaresan emphasized that the “JIO” mark had already been recognized as a well-known trademark by earlier decisions of the same Court. The order underscored the potential harm that could result from the misuse of such a brand, observing:

“The continued usage of a well-known and protected brand name would indeed cause grave injury and considering the mending of ways by the Defendants, even the balance of convenience would be in favor of grant of the ad interim relief.”

Accordingly, the Court granted ad-interim relief in terms of the Plaintiff’s prayer clauses, effectively restraining the Defendants and all those acting for or through them from:

• Using the domain name www.jiocabs.com or any mark deceptively similar to “JIO”;

• Employing any identical or substantially similr artistic works or logos that infringe upon Reliance’s trademark and copyright.

Operative Directions

The order concluded with clear procedural directions for the next steps in the matter:

“It is made clear that should the Defendants be desirous of varying, altering or vacating the ad-interim relief granted hereby, the Defendants may appear before the Court, and present its say.
20. Affidavit in reply, if any, may be filed within a period of four weeks from the upload of this order on the website of this Court. Rejoinder, if any, may be filed within two weeks thereafter. List for further consideration of interim relief on November 28, 2025.
21. All actions required to be taken pursuant to this order, shall be taken upon receipt of a downloaded copy as available on this Court’s website.”

Case Title: Reliance Industries Limited v Asif Ahmed and Ors. (COMMERCIAL IP SUIT (L) NO. 27370 OF 2025)

Advocate for Petitioner: Advocate Vinod A. Bhagat instructed by. Arjun T. Bhagat & Co., Advocates for Applicant/Plaintiff

Advocate for Defendants: None