Delhi District Court
Manash Lifestyle Private Limited vs Ashok Kumar on 11 April, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA
DISTRICT JUDGE, (COMMERCIAL COURT)-02, WEST,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, EXTENSION BLOCK, DELHI
CS (COMM) No. 143/2024
CNR NO.DLWT010011332024
Manash Lifestyle Private Limited
Through its Authorized Representative
F-121, Block F, Main Market,
Rajouri Garden, New Delhi -110027
Also, at:
Unit No: 101 - B, 1st Floor, Raheja Plaza-I,
LBS Marg, Ghatkopar (West),
Mumbai - 400086, Maharashtra
...Plaintiff
Versus
1. ASHOK KUMAR
Website: WWWPURPLLE.COM
Address: Hidden/ Unknown
Email id: Hidden/ Unknown ...Defendant No. 1
2. ASHOK KUMAR
Website: PURPLLE.STORE
Address: Hidden/ Unknown
Email id: Hidden/ Unknown ...Defendant No. 2
3. ASHOK KUMAR
Website: PURPLLEDRIVE.COM
Address: Hidden/ Unknown
Email id: Hidden/ Unknown ...Defendant No. 3
4. ASHOK KUMAR
Website: PURPLLE.APP
Address: Hidden/ Unknown
Email id: Hidden/ Unknown ...Defendant No. 4
5. SK DNR HOLDINGS CO. LIMITED
Website: PURPLLE.COM.CN
Room 1701, 17/F, Henan Building,
No.90 Jaffe Road, Wenchai,
Hong Kong, 999077, China
Email: [email protected] ...Defendant No. 5
Digitally
CS (Comm.) No.143/2024 Manash Lifestyle Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ashok Kumar & Ors. PREETI signed by 1/26
AGRAWAL PREETI
GUPTA AGRAWAL
GUPTA
(PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-02
West/Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi.
11.04.2026
6. MATEUS LUAN
Website: PURPLLEFY.FUN
Rua Alto de Santo Antonio, 306,
Burgo Paulista, Sao Paulo, 03680-050, Brazil
Email id: [email protected] ...Defendant No. 6
7. ASHOK KUMAR
Website: PURPLLE.COM.AU
Address: Hidden/ Unknown
Email id: Hidden/ Unknown ...Defendant No. 7
(Defendants no.1 to 7 deleted vide orders dated 10.04.2026)
8. SHIKHA SINGH
Website: PURPLLELADY.COM
DM-55, Sai Mandir road, Deen Dayal Nagar,
Moradabad-244001, Uttar Pradesh INDIA
Email id: [email protected]
Mob.No.:+91 8583979407 ...Defendant No. 8
9. ASHOK KUMAR
Website: PURPLLEBOX.COM
Address: Hidden/ Unknown
Email id: Hidden/ Unknown ...Defendant No. 9
10. ASHOK KUMAR
Website: POSHPURPLLE.COM
Address: Hidden/ Unknown
Email id: Hidden/ Unknown ...Defendant No. 10
11. ASHOK KUMAR
Website: MANEGEPURPLLE.COM
Address: Hidden/ Unknown
Email id: Hidden/ Unknown ...Defendant No. 11
12. ASHOK KUMAR
Website: PURPLLE.SITE
Address: Hidden/ Unknown
Email id: Hidden/ Unknown ...Defendant No. 12
13. ZHANG WEI
Website: PURPLLE.CO
Address: Yun He Xi Lu 237 Hao, Yangzhou,
Jingsu, 2255000, China
Email id: [email protected] ...Defendant No. 13
CS (Comm.) No.143/2024 Manash Lifestyle Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ashok Kumar & Ors. Digitally 2/26
PREETI signed by
AGRAWAL PREETI
GUPTA AGRAWAL
GUPTA
(PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-02
West/Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi.
11.04.2026
14. CEMETI JAILANI
Website: PURPLLEE.SITE
J1 No. 51, Buduran Madium,
Jawa Timur, 63157, Indonesia
Email id: [email protected] ...Defendant No. 14
15. ASHOK KUMAR
Website: PURPLLE-BEAUTY.CF
Address: Hidden/ Unknown
Email id: Hidden/ Unknown ...Defendant No. 15
16. ASHOK KUMAR
Website: PURPLLE-BEAUTY.GQ
Address: Hidden/ Unknown
Email id: Hidden/ Unknown ...Defendant No. 16
17. ASHOK KUMAR
Website: PURPLLE-BEAUTY.TK
Address: Hidden/ Unknown
Email id: Hidden/ Unknown ...Defendant No. 17
18. ASHOK KUMAR
Website: PURPLLEBEAUTY.CF
Address: Hidden/ Unknown
Email id: Hidden/ Unknown ...Defendant No. 18
19. ASHOK KUMAR
Website: PURPLLEBEAUTY.GQ
Address: Hidden/ Unknown
Email id: Hidden/ Unknown ...Defendant No. 19
20. ASHOK KUMAR
Website: PURPLLEBEAUTY.TK
Address: Hidden/ Unknown
Email id: Hidden/ Unknown ...Defendant No. 20
(Defendants no.9 to 20 deleted vide orders dated 10.04.2026)
21. Sea Wasp, LLC
Through its Grievance Officer,
9029 Jefferson Hwy., Suite D #298
River Ridge, LA 70123
Email: [email protected], [email protected] ...Defendant No. 21
CS (Comm.) No.143/2024 Manash Lifestyle Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ashok Kumar & Ors. Digitally 3/26
PREETI signed by
AGRAWAL PREETI
GUPTA AGRAWAL
GUPTA
(PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-02
West/Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi.
11.04.2026
22. Namecheap, Inc
Through its Grievance Officer,
4600 East Washington Street, Suite 305,
Phoenix, AZ 85034, United States of America
Email: [email protected],
[email protected] ...Defendant No. 22
23. PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com
Through its Grievance Officer,
401, IT Building No 3,
NESCO IT Park, NESCO Complex,
Western Express Highway, Goregaon (East),
Mumbai - 400063, Maharashtra, India
Email: [email protected],
[email protected] ...Defendant No. 23
24. Web Address Registration Pty Ltd
Through its Grievance Officer,
Level 2, 8 Howlett St, North Perth
WA, 6006, Australia
Email: [email protected] ...Defendant No. 24
25. GoDaddy, LLC
Through its Grievance Officer,
14455, N. Hayden Road, Scottsdale,
Arizona 85260, United States of America
Email: [email protected],
[email protected] ...Defendant No. 25
(Deleted vide orders of the Court dated 20.01.2025)
26. Above.com Pty Ltd
Through its Grievance Officer,
6-8 East Concourse Beaumaris,
VIC 3193, Australia
Email: [email protected], [email protected] ...Defendant No. 26
27. Chengdu West Dimension Digital Technology Co., Ltd.
Through its Grievance Officer,
24F-2, Global Plaza, No. 99,
North Section of First Ring Road, Jinniu District,
Chengdu City, Sichuan Province 610000, China
Email: [email protected], [email protected] ...Defendant No. 27
28. Dynadot LLC
Through its Grievance Officer,
CS (Comm.) No.143/2024 Manash Lifestyle Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ashok Kumar & Ors. Digitally 4/26
PREETI signed by
AGRAWAL PREETI
GUPTA AGRAWAL
GUPTA
(PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-02
West/Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi.
11.04.2026
210 S Ellsworth Ave #345 San Mateo,
CA 94401, United States of America
Email: [email protected], [email protected] ...Defendant No. 28
29. Hostinger, UAB
Through its Grievance Officer,
Jonavos g. 60C, 44192
Kaunas, Lithuania
Email: [email protected], [email protected] ...Defendant No. 29
30. Atria Convergence Technologies Private Limited
Through its Managing Director/ Authorized Representative,
2nd & 3rd Floor, No. 1 Indian Express Building,
Queen's Road, Bangalore - 560001, Karnataka
Email: [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected] ...Defendant No. 30
31. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited
Through its Grievance Officer/ Authorized Representative,
5th Floor, Harish Chandra Mathur Lane,
Janpath, New Delhi -110001
Email: [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected] ...Defendant No. 31
32. Bharti Airtel Limited
Through its Managing Director/ Authorized Representative,
Airtel Centre, Tower-A, 6th Floor,
'A' Wing, Plot No. 16, Udyog Vihar,
Ph-IV, Gurgaon - 122016 Haryana
Email: [email protected],
[email protected] ...Defendant No. 32
33. Hathway Cable & Datacom Private Limited
Through its Managing Director/ Authorized Representative,
'Rahejas', 4th Floor, Main Avenue,
Santacruz (W), Mumbai-400054
Email : [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected] ...Defendant No. 33
34. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited
Through its Grievance Officer / Authorized Representative,
5th Floor, Mahanagar Doorsanchar Sadan
9, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road,
New Delhi - 110003
Email : : [email protected]; [email protected],
CS (Comm.) No.143/2024 Manash Lifestyle Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ashok Kumar & Ors. Digitally 5/26
PREETI signed by
AGRAWAL PREETI
GUPTA AGRAWAL
GUPTA
(PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-02
West/Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi.
11.04.2026
[email protected] ...Defendant No. 34
35. Reliance Jio Infocomm Limited
Through its Managing Director / Authorized Representative,
RCP 14 (TC 23), Phase 4,
B-Block, 3rd Floor, C 4 130 Twane- Belapur Road,
Gansoli, Navi Mumbai- 400701
Email: [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected] ...Defendant No. 35
36. Shyam Spectra Private Limited
Through its Managing Director/ Authorized Representative,
Plot 21-22, 3rd Floor Udyog Vihar,
Phase IV, Gurgaon, Haryana - 122015
Email : [email protected]; [email protected] ...Defendant No. 36
37. Tata Teleservices Limited
Through its Managing Director/ Authorized Representative,
A, E & F Blocks Voltas Premises - T. B. Kadam Marg
Chinchpokli, Mumbai - 400033
Email: [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected] ...Defendant No. 37
(Defendants no.21 to 37 except defendant no.25, deleted vide orders dated 10.04.2026)
(Suit withdrawn in terms of statement of the plaintiff U/O X CPC dated 10.04.2026)
38. Vodafone Idea Limited
Through its Managing Director/ Authorized Representative,
10th Floor, Birla Centurion, Century Mills Compound,
Pandurang Budhkar Marg, Worli,
Mumbai - 400030 Maharashtra
Email: : [email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected] ...Defendant No. 38
(Deleted vide orders dated 10.04.2026)
39. The Department of Telecommunications [DoT]
Through its Secretary,
CS (Comm.) No.143/2024 Manash Lifestyle Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ashok Kumar & Ors. Digitally 6/26
PREETI signed by
AGRAWAL PREETI
GUPTA AGRAWAL
GUPTA
(PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-02
West/Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi.
11.04.2026
Ministry of Communications,
Government of India, Sanchar Bhawan
20, Ashoka Road, New Delhi - 110001
Email: [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected],
[email protected] ...Defendant No. 39
40. Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY)
Through the Division of Cyber Laws & E-Security
Government of India, Electronics Niketan,
6, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi - 110003
Email: [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected] ...Defendant No. 40
(Appropriate Notification issued by defendant no.39 and 40)
41. ASHOK KUMAR ...Defendant No. 41
(Deleted for un-disclosed identity)
SUIT UNDER SECTIONS 134 & 135 READ WITH SECTION 27
AND 29 OF THE TRADE MARKS ACT, 1999 FOR THE RELIEF
OF PERMANENT INJUNCTION TO RESTRAIN PASSING OFF,
INFRINGEMENT, RENDITION OF ACCOUNTS, DELIVERY UP
ETC.
Date of institution of Suit : 09.02.2024
Date of Assignment to this court : 12.02.2024
Date of hearing of final argument : 10.04.2026
Date of Judgment : 11.04.2026
JUDGMENT
1. By way of present judgment/order suit of the plaintiff filed for Permanent Injunction restraining defendant(s) from Passing Off, Infringement, Rendition Of Accounts, Delivery Up etc., is being adjudicated upon. It shall be relevant to examine the facts of the present case for the determination of the plaintiff's entitlement to a CS (Comm.) No.143/2024 Manash Lifestyle Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ashok Kumar & Ors. Digitally 7/26 PREETI signed by AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-02 West/Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi.
11.04.2026 judgment/decree, by way of the present Suit filed before this Court, based on admissions by the defendant(s).
2. In the present Suit filed by the plaintiff, plaintiff company is stated to be operating an Online Beauty and Wellness Store under the name and style of PURPLLE/ , available on its website at https://www.purplle.com, stated to be a registered site since 26.08.2011. Plaintiff has asserted itself as true owner, prior adopter, honest user, and registered proprietor of the trademarks PURPLLE and several Device Marks: PURPLLE, , , , , , PURPLLE.COM, , PURPLLE BEAUTY FM, etc. (hereinafter collectively referred to as the PURPLLE trademarks). It is the case of the plaintiff that apart from the common law rights, the plaintiff also holds registrations / applied for PURPLLE trademarks in various classes and that the Plaintiff owns three domain name registrations in its favour containing the word PURPLLE and all three domains are valid and have been in use since its registration.
3. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff on the basis of the assertions that in 2nd week of December 2023, Plaintiff found twenty (20) various domain names with similar keyword PURPLLE, registered by unknown entities, valid and in existence. These domain names are claimed to be completely similar/ identical to Plaintiff's prior adopted and registered trademarks PURPLLE. As CS (Comm.) No.143/2024 Manash Lifestyle Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ashok Kumar & Ors. 8/26 (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-02 West/Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi. Digitally 11.04.2026 PREETI signed by AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA per the plaintiff, only plaintiff uses the trademark PURPLLE where in the spelling of PURPLLE, the Plaintiff uses double L i.e. "LL".
4. The plaintiff is seeking relief against the defendants by virtue of prior continuous and uninterrupted use of domain names which plaintiff claims to have acquired distinctiveness, immense goodwill and recognition in India. To substantiate their arguments, learned counsel for plaintiff has relied upon cases titled as ' Winzo Games Pvt Ltd Vs. https//www.winzogold.org & Ors.', 'TATA Digital Pvt Ltd & Anr. Vs. Jaswant NB & Ors.' , 'Star India Private Limited & Anr. Vs. Serial Ghar. Me & Ors .' and 'MARS Incorporated Vs. Kumar Krishna Mukherjee & Ors.' To establish that the domain names of plaintiff registered, plaintiff also furnished details of the plaintiff's domain name registrations. Plaintiff also furnished the details of registration of domain names of defendant nos.1 to 20 which are as under:
PLAINTIFF S. Domain Name Status No.
1. PURPLLE.COM Valid and Registered from 26.08.2011
2. PURPLLE.IN Valid and Registered from 13.08.2012
3. PURPLLE.CO.IN Valid and Registered from 16.12.2022 DEFENDANTS Infringing Domain Name Creation Domain Domain Domain Date Registrar Registrar Defendant Defendant Defendant Defendant wwwpurplle.com 30.09.2019 Sea Wasp, LLC No. 1 No. 21 CS (Comm.) No.143/2024 Manash Lifestyle Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ashok Kumar & Ors. PREETI Digitally signed by 9/26 AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-02 West/Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi.
11.04.2026
Defendant
purplle.store 28.07.2023 Namecheap
No. 2
Defendant NameCheap, Defendant
purplledrive.com 09.02.2023
No. 3 Inc. No. 22
Defendant
purplle.app 01.02.2023 Namecheap Inc.
No. 4
Defendant
purplle.com.cn 14.06.2019 PDR Ltd.
No. 5
Defendant
PDR Ltd. d/b/ a
Defendant No. 23
purpllefy.fun 21.06.2023 Public Domain
No. 6
Registry.com
Web Address
Defendant Defendant
purplle.com.au 10.09.2023 Registration Pty
No. 7 No. 24
Ltd
Defendant GoDaddy.com,
purpllelady.com 08.05.2023
No. 8 LLC
Defendant GoDaddy.com, Defendant
purpllebox.com 07.04.2023
No. 9 LLC No. 25
Defendant GoDaddy.com,
poshpurplle.com 27.02.2023
No. 10 LLC
Defendant Above.com Pty Defendant
manegepurplle.com 04.09.2023
No. 11 Ltd. No. 26
Chengdu West Defendant
Dimension No. 27
Defendant
purplle.site 16.10.2022 Digital
No. 12
Technology Co.,
Ltd.
Defendant Defendant
purplle.co 04.07.2023 Dynadot Inc
No. 13 No. 28
Hostinger
Defendant Defendant
purpllee.site 28.05.2023 Operations,
No. 14 No. 29
UAB
Defendant
Purplle-beauty. cf NA NA
No. 15
Defendant
purplle-beauty.gq NA NA
No. 16
Defendant
purplle-beauty.tk NA NA
No. 17
No Details
Defendant
purpllebeauty.cf NA NA
No. 18
Defendant
purpllebeauty.gq NA NA
No. 19
Defendant purpllebeauty.tk NA NA
No. 20
CS (Comm.) No.143/2024 Manash Lifestyle Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ashok Kumar & Ors. 10/26
Digitally
PREETI signed by
AGRAWAL PREETI
GUPTA AGRAWAL
GUPTA
(PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-02 West/Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi.
11.04.2026
5. During the pendency of the suit, after issuance of Summons of the Suit upon the defendants, Counsels for defendant no.25/GoDaddy, LLC and defendant no.38/Vodafone Idea Limited appeared before the Court. While defendant no.25 was heard during the passing of ad-interim injunction orders by the Court dated 08.04.2024, the presence of defendant no.38 before the Court was, after service of the ad-interim orders whereby, both defendants no.25 and 38 filed their respective compliance report in terms of the ad- interim orders passed by the Court. All the defendants placed out of India arrayed in the Memo of Parties as defendant no.21, defendant no.22, defendant no.28 and defendant no. 29 were placed abroad in USA; defendant no.24 and defendant no.26 have their addresses located in Australia, while defendant no.27 has been arrayed with its China address. Defendants no.1 to 20 have been arrayed with different allegedly deceptively similar domain names, with unknown addresses and unknown identity.
6. By way of separate statement recorded today on behalf of the plaintiff, plaintiff had prayed for deletion/dropping of the Suit against defendants no.1 to 7; defendants no.9 to 20; defendants no. 21 to 37, except defendant no.25. As regards defendant no.25/GoDaddy.com and defendant no.38/Vodafone Idea Limited, it has already been considered that the ad-interim orders passed by this Court were duly complied with and no further directions have now been pressed in terms of the Statement recorded on behalf of the CS (Comm.) No.143/2024 Manash Lifestyle Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ashok Kumar & Ors. Digitally 11/26 PREETI signed by AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-02 West/Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi.
11.04.2026 plaintiff U/O X CPC, today. It is further submitted on behalf of plaintiff that defendant no.39 and defendant no.40 being Government Agencies, have already issued necessary instructions to all internet services licensees for necessary action and compliance for blocking the website with the domain names of defendants no.1 to 20, similar to domain name of the plaintiff. The Notification dated 19.04.2024 has been filed on record and relied upon as Mark-A.
7. It is considered that the Domain names are user friendly and easy to remember addresses that internet surfers use to locate any website. A domain name, quite simply, can be referred to as an 'online identity' of one's business. Technically speaking, because the Internet is based on IP addresses, every web server requires a Domain Name System (DNS) server to translate domain names into IP addresses. Each website has a domain name that serves as an address, which is used to access the website. Domain names are usually [xyz] followed by .com; .org;.gov;.net;.in; etc.
8. The Courts too have elaborated the significance of a domain name as equivalent to a trademark on internet as a domain name must be unique to its business and has maintained an exclusive identity. In case titled as 'Satyam Infoway Ltd Vs Siffynet Solutions Pvt. Ltd.'; AIR 2004 SC 3540 dated 06.05.2004, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that :
"The original role of a domain name was no doubt to provide an address for computers on the internet. But the internet has developed from a mere means CS (Comm.) No.143/2024 Manash Lifestyle Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ashok Kumar & Ors. Digitally 12/26 PREETI signed by AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-02 West/Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi.
11.04.2026 of communication to a mode of carrying on commercial activity. With the increase of commercial activity on the internet, a domain name is also used as a business identifier. Therefore, the domain name not only serves as an address for internet communication but also identifies the specific internet site, and distinguishes specific businesses or services of different companies. Consequently, a domain name as an address must, of necessity, be peculiar and unique and where a domain name is used in connection with a business, the value of maintaining an exclusive identity becomes critical. As more and more commercial enterprises trade or advertise their presence on the web, domain names have become more and more valuable and the potential for dispute is high."
9. Similarly, in 'Rajat Agarwal Vs. Spartan Online'; AIR 2017 (NOC) 846 (CAL.), Hon'ble High Court of Calcuttta, citing the Satyam case held that a domain name is chosen as "an instrument of commercial enterprise not only because it facilitates the ability of consumers to navigate the Internet to find websites they are looking for, but also at the same time, serves to identify and distinguish the business itself, or its goods or services, and to specify its corresponding Internet location."
10. The Courts have time and again granted protection to the owner of domain name provided that a case of infringement or passing off is made out. In the case of 'Celador Productions Ltd. Vs. Gaurav Mehrotra' ; 96 (2002) DLT 543, the defendant used a name on its website i.e. crorepatikaun.com or kaun banega crorepati as a second level domain, which was similar to that of the plaintiff's game Digitally CS (Comm.) No.143/2024 Manash Lifestyle Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ashok Kumar & Ors. PREETI signed by 13/26 AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-02 West/Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi.
11.04.2026 show name i.e. Kaun Banega Crorepati. Apart from copying the format of the show, the defendant used a similar logo, similar font and the plaintiff's representative's voice. In this case, where everything was similar to someone's original product, the Court held that "a domain name is more than a web address, it provides information about the owner's goods and service, therefore the owner can seek the protection of its domain."
11. Further, in 'Times Internet Ltd. Vs. Jonathan S. & Anr.' decided on 17.4.2012 in CS (OS) 1742 of 2007, Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that the defendant has been using a deceptively similar trademark of the plaintiff i.e. Indiatimes, which would take the consumer, who was searching for the plaintiff's domain, to another domain site. It was held that the domain name can not be similar to that of the plaintiff, as it would deceive the consumer who is looking for the particular domain.
12. By way of the ad-interim orders dated 08.04.2024, defendant Nos. 1 to 20 and 41 or anyone acting on their behalf were restrained from using the trademark PURPLLE or any deceptively similar variant thereof, or in any manner amounting to infringement. Further, defendant Nos. 21 to 29 or anyone acting on their behalf were directed to suspend and lock the domain names registered by Defendant Nos. 1 to 8, 11 to 20 and 41 with directions to disclose the contact particulars of the registrants. Defendant Nos. 30 to 38 were also directed to suspend and lock the domain names registered by CS (Comm.) No.143/2024 Manash Lifestyle Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ashok Kumar & Ors. Digitally 14/26 PREETI signed by AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-02 West/Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi.
11.04.2026 Defendant Nos. 1 to 8, 11 to 20 and 41. It has been considered by the Court that defendants no. 9 and 10, who were registered with defendant no.25 at the relevant time, had subsequently lost their registration with the allegedly infringing domain names. Furthermore, the Government agencies arrayed as defendants No. 39 and 40 were directed to issue a Notification calling upon Internet Providers to block access to the infringing domain names of Defendants No. 1 to 20 and 41.
13. It may be now relevant to consider that defendant no.8, identified as Ms.Shikha Singh, further appeared before the Court during the pendency and filed the application U/O 1 Rule 10 CPC seeking deletion of defendant no.8 from array of parties. The Court has considered that defendant no.8 has filed the Written Statement, alongwith affidavit of admission/denial of documents, alongwith an application seeking deletion of her name. It is further considered that during the pendency of the Suit, 19 domains, out of the 20 allegedly infringing domains, expired by lapse of time and alleged that defendant no.8 was continuing to renew her allegedly infringing domain 'purpllelady.com', with defendant no.25/GoDaddy.com. However, defendant no.38/Vodafone Idea Limited submitted before the Court that there were instructions issued for discontinuation of accessibility of the infringing domain name on the internet service subscribers of defendant no.38/Vodafone India Limited. Defendant no.8 has also sought deletion from array of parties with the affidavit that it had stopped the usage of allegedly infringing domain name, to Digitally CS (Comm.) No.143/2024 Manash Lifestyle Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ashok Kumar & Ors. PREETI signed by 15/26 AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-02 West/Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi.
11.04.2026 protect the registered trademarks of the plaintiff with the domain name PURPLLE/ .
14. In view of the respective statements of the contesting parties to the Suit, it is determined that admission of facts has been made by way of separate statement U/O X CPC recorded by the Court. It is also considered that the present suit is not pressed against defendants no.1 to 7; defendant no.9 to 20; defendant no.21 to 37 (except defendant no.25). It is further considered that defendant no.25/GoDaddy, LLC, after compliance of the ad-interim orders of the Court dated 08.04.2024, were prayed to be deleted and allowed by the Court vide orders dated 20.01.2025. Furthermore, the remaining contesting defendant no.38/Vodafone Idea Limited, has also submitted compliance and stands deleted vide orders of the Court dated 10.04.2026. As regards the remaining defendants no.39 & 40, which are Government agencies, appropriate instructions to all internet service licenses, for blocking the website with domain name 'PURPLLE' of the plaintiff, have already been issued and no further relief is pressed. By way of statements, it has been conceded by both the parties that the only relevant prayer para in the plaint against the contesting defendant, is for seeking a Decree of Permanent injunction against granting access to the unauthorised and infringing use of its domain and trademark belonging to the plaintiff under the name and style of the trademark 'PURPLLE'. By way of statement made on behalf of defendant No.8, the domain name 'purpllelady.com', which was subscribed by her with defendant no.25 as on 08.05.2023 has not CS (Comm.) No.143/2024 Manash Lifestyle Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ashok Kumar & Ors. 16/26 (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) Digitally PREETI signed by District Judge (Commercial Court)-02 AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL West/Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi. GUPTA 11.04.2026 been subscribed/renewed after its expiration for a period of one year and is no longer subsisting or active. Her statement and undertaking, not to do any business in the trademarks name of the plaintiff PURPLLE or deceptively similar name, has been admitted. There is nothing further that survives in the present suit, for determination of any other question.
15. In the peculiar facts of the present case, the Court has considered that a fit case is made out for pronouncement of a judgement on admission as provided U/S XII Rule 6 of Civil Procedural Code. The principle on pronouncement of judgement on admission is derived from the common law principle. The primary objective of this statutory provision is to enable a party to obtain speedy judgment where such admission, whether oral or documentary, is unambiguous and unequivocal, by way of direct implication or reasonable inference derived from entirety of facts and circumstances before the Court.
16. The relevant provision U/O XII Rule 6 CPC is as under:-
"(1) Where admissions of fact have been made either in the pleading or otherwise, whether orally or in writing, the Court may at any stage of the suit, either on the application of any party or of its own motion and without waiting for the determination of any other question between the parties, make such order or give such judgment as it may think fit, having regard to such admissions.
(2) Whenever a judgment is pronounced under sub-
rule (1), a decree shall be drawn up in accordance CS (Comm.) No.143/2024 Manash Lifestyle Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ashok Kumar & Ors. 17/26 Digitally PREETI signed by AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-02 West/Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi.
11.04.2026 with the judgment and the decree shall bear the date on which the judgment was pronounced."
An admission to be qualified for operation of Order XII Rule 6 CPC as valid admission, should be Unequivocal, Unambiguous, Unconditional, should be made with intend to be bound by it, should be a valid admission independently without having to be proved by adducing evidence and should entitle the other party to succeed. It is further that 'Admission' necessarily means a statement made, either in pleadings or otherwise to conclusively determine an issue made by a party intending to be bound by it. The statement or pleading or ay document to constitute admission within the meaning and purpose of Order XII Rule 6 CPC, depends on facts and circumstances of each case.
17. It may be relevant to consider the circumstances under which the court may validly consider 'constructive admission', coupled with facts of each case to test and determine, if 'admission of fact' is plain, clear and unretractable. The guidance can be derived from the pronouncement of Hon'ble Apex Court, who was pleased to comprehensively examine the concept of 'admission U/O XII Rule 6 CPC' in 2.1.6. In 'Karam Kapahi and Others v. Lal Chand Public Charitable Trust'; (2010) 4 SCC 753. The Hon'ble Apex Court considered:-
The Hon'ble Court specially referred to Scots Law term "approbate and reprobate" where by doctrine of election, the party cannot chose both to accept and CS (Comm.) No.143/2024 Manash Lifestyle Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ashok Kumar & Ors. Digitally 18/26 PREETI signed by AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-02 West/Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi.
11.04.2026 reject the same instrument....".
It is further considered :-
"37.The principles behind Order 12 Rule 6 are to give the plaintiff a right to speedy judgment. Under this Rule either party may get rid of so much of the rival claims about 'which there is no controversy' [See the dictum of Lord Jessel, the Master of Rolls, in Thorp v. Holdsworth in (1876) 3 CD 637 at 640].
39. In the 54th Law Commission Report, an amendment was suggested to enable the Court to give a judgment not only on the application of a party but on its own motion. It is thus clear that the amendment was brought about to further the ends of justice and give these provisions a wider sweep by empowering judges to use it 'ex debito justitial, a Latin term, meaning a debt of justice. In our opinion the thrust of the amendment is that in an appropriate case, a party, on the admission of the other party, can press for judgment, as a matter of legal right. However, the Court always retains its discretion in the matter of pronouncing judgment.
41. Keeping the width of this provision in mind this Court held that under this rule admissions can be inferred from facts and circumstances of the case [See Charanjit Lal Mehra and Ors. v. Kamal Saroj Mahajan (Smt.) and Anr. (2005) 11 SCC 279 at page 285 (para
8) ]. Admissions in answer to interrogatories are also covered under this Rule [See Mullas's commentary on the Code, 16th Edition, Volume II, page 2177].
45. Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code has been very lucidly discussed and succinctly interpreted in a Division Bench judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Shikharchand and Ors. v. Mst. Bari Bai Digitally PREETI signed by CS (Comm.) No.143/2024 Manash Lifestyle Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ashok Kumar & Ors. AGRAWAL PREETI 19/26 GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-02 West/Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi.
11.04.2026 and Ors. reported in AIR 1974 Madhya Pradesh 75. Justice G.P. Singh (as His Lordship then was) in a concurring judgment explained the aforesaid rule, if we may say so, very authoritatively at page 79 of the report. His Lordship held:
...I will only add a few words of my own. Rule 6 of Order 12 of the Code of civil Procedure corresponds to Rule 5 of Order 32 of the Supreme Court Rules (English), now Rule 3 of Order 27, and is almost identically worded (see Annual Practice 1965 edition Part I. p. 569). The Supreme Court Rule came up for consideration in Ellis v. Allen (1914) Ch 904. In that case a suit was filed for ejectment, mesne profits and damages on the ground of breach of covenant against sub-letting. Lessee's solicitors wrote to the plaintiff's solicitors in which fact of breach of covenant was admitted and a case was sought to be made out for relief against forfeiture. This letter was used as an admission under Rule 5 and as there was no substance in the plea of relief against forfeiture, the suit was decreed for ejectment under that rule. Sargant, J. rejected the argument that the rule is confined to admissions made in pleadings or under Rules 1 to 4 in the same order (same as ours) and said:
The rule applies wherever there is a clear admission of facts in the face of which it is impossible for the party making it to succeed.
Rule 6 of Order 12, in my opinion, must bear the same construction as was put upon the corresponding English rule by Sargent, J. The words "either on the pleadings or otherwise" in Rule 6 enable us not only to see the admissions made in pleadings or under Rules 1 to 4 of the same order but also admissions made elsewhere during the trial.
(Emphasis added)"
18. After duly considering the intent and scope of determination of the suit, if no further trial is warranted in facts and Digitally CS (Comm.) No.143/2024 Manash Lifestyle Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ashok Kumar & Ors. PREETI signed by 20/26 AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-02 West/Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi.
11.04.2026 circumstances of the present case, it may not be out of place to consider the intent and purpose of the legislation by way of commercial Courts Act, 2015. It is considered that the intent and purpose of constitution of the Commercial Courts by the Act of Parliament was in wake of need to provide an independent mechanism for resolution of high value Commercial disputes, in an expeditious and time-bound manner. In order to duly achieve and uphold the legislative intent of expeditious disposal, the court in its reasonable reasonable exercise of its judicial discretion after careful consideration of the facts of the present case, considered a fit case to pass judgement on admission. It is needless to state that such discretion must be exercised in consonance with the object of the rule to provide speedy justice atleast to the extent of admission. It is clear beyond doubt that the Court has power to pass admission on judgment at any stage, where the Court is satisfied that a valid admission is made.
19. It is therefore, law of the land that when the Court is satisfied that a valid admission is made by the party under this Rule, the Court shall proceed to pass a judgment on admission and shall not wait for determination of any other question. In the peculiar facts of the present case, prayer para 31(a) & 31(b) by which Decree of Permanent Injunction has been prayed against defendant no.1 to 20 and 41 in respect of trademark PURPLLE or any deceptively similar variant thereof, is prayed to prevent infringement of the proprietary rights of the plaintiff over the trademarks 'PURPLLE', restraining Digitally PREETI signed by CS (Comm.) No.143/2024 Manash Lifestyle Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ashok Kumar & Ors. AGRAWAL PREETI 21/26 GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-02 West/Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi.
11.04.2026 defendants no.1 to 20 and 41 and their agents from using the trademark PURPLLE or any other deceptively similar variant, from infringement and/or passing off as those of the plaintiff with the trademark 'PURPLLE'. Furthermore, the plaintiff sought directions against defendants no.21 to 29 and its assignees and agents for permanently blocking the domain name registered by defendants no.1 to 20 and 41 with further directions for disclosure of contact particulars of the registrants. Similar directions have been prayed against defendant no.30 to 38 and its assignees or agents. As against defendant no.39 namely The Department of Telecommunications (DoT) and defendant no.40 namely Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) vide prayer para 31(e), directions have been sought against defendant no.39 and defendant no.40 for issuance of Notification calling calling upon internet providers to block access to the infringing domain name of defendant no.1 to 20 and 41. During the pendency of the Suit, defendant no.39 and 40 have duly complied with mandatory directions passed by the Court during pendency of the case. During pendency of the case, which has been relied upon as Mark-A, vide statement U/O X CPC recorded before the Court on 10.04.2026, on behalf of the plaintiff.
20. By way of the present application U/O XII Rule 6 CPC of the plaintiff, relief/direction is sought against defendant no.25/GoDaddy to forthwith transfer the domain name purpllelady.com of defendant no.8 in favour of the plaintiff and to take all necessary steps, including execution of requisite documents CS (Comm.) No.143/2024 Manash Lifestyle Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ashok Kumar & Ors. Digitally 22/26 PREETI signed by AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-02 West/Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi.
11.04.2026 and technical compliances, for effectuating such transfer. However, during hearing in the matter, the plaintiff itself sought deletion of defendant no.25/GoDaddy from the array of parties, which has bee n allowed by the court by the court vide orders dated 20.01.2025, in view of the compliance reported on behalf of defendant no.25, not challenging the proprietary rights of the plaintiffs claim over the domain name 'PURPLLE' and its variants. It has been further brought forth on record that the domain name purpllelady.com of defendant no.8, purchased by defendant no.8 from defendant no.25 on 08.05.2023, has lapsed by time on expiration of a period of one year and the said domain has been discontinued, thereafter. There is no contest by defendant no.25, to challenge the claimed rights of the plaintiff which have been admitted and submitted before the Court, pursuant to which, defendant no.25 has been dropped by the plaintiff. Accordingly, there is no further directions necessary against defendant no.25/GoDaddy, as prayed in the application.
21. The Court has further considered that defendants no.1 to 7 and defendants no.9 to 10 stand deleted from the array of parties, during the pendency of the suit. As regards defendant no.38/Vodafone Idea Limited, the submission on behalf of defendant no.38 has been admitted wherein the instructions have already been issued for discontinuation of accessibility of the infringing domain name 'PURPLLE' or its variants, to the internet service subscribers of defendant no.38. Accordingly, pursuant to compliance and no further cause of action surviving against defendant no.38, the said Digitally CS (Comm.) No.143/2024 Manash Lifestyle Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ashok Kumar & Ors. PREETI signed by 23/26 AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-02 West/Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi.
11.04.2026 defendant also stands deleted from the array of defendants, with suit not pressed against the said defendant.
22. The only aspect that remains pending and under consideration is the prayer of the plaintiff, by way of application U/O XII Rule 6 CPC, for seeking Decree of Permanent Injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against defendant no.8, including her partners, directors, proprietors, family members, employees, agents, assigns, representatives, affiliates and any other person acting for or on her behalf, thereby restraining them from using, registering, re- registering, or in any manner dealing with the domain name purpllelady.com or any other mark/domain identical with or deceptively similar to the registered trade mark PURPLLE of the plaintiff.
23. Vide separate detailed statement U/O X CPC on behalf of the plaintiff, it has been admitted that no other prayer para in the main suit remains pending or pressed, before this Court.
24. Defendant no.8 has given an unambiguous and unequivocal statement U/O X CPC, stating that she was a bonafide purchaser of the domain name 'purpllelady.com', without any knowledge of a pre-existing domain of the plaintiff i.e. 'purplle.com'. She further submitted that she did not do any business under her domain name which was purchased in 08.05.2023, for a period of one Digitally CS (Comm.) No.143/2024 Manash Lifestyle Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ashok Kumar & Ors. PREETI signed by 24/26 AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-02 West/Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi.
11.04.2026 year and further admitted that the domain name subscribed by her, had lapsed of time and not continued by her, thereafter. Defendant no.8 has further given her undertaking that she had no intention to do any business in the trademark name 'PURPLLE', of the plaintiff, further undertaking to do her business under unique identity and admitting that she did not have any intention or rights to use the trade-name of the plaintiff 'PURPLLE', in future also.
25. The Court is satisfied that 'the admission' on behalf of the defendant No.8 is not only categorical but is conscious and deliberate compliance, clearly showing an unequivocal intention of the defendant no.8 to be bound by her statement made before this Court 'on oath'. A fit case is made out for passing a judgment by virtue of Order XII Rule 6 CPC, which is an enabling provision. This Court on examination of facts and circumstances, considers it a fit case for exercise of its judicial discretion, as there is no other issue or right that remains open or contested between the parties for determination of any other pending question. The plaintiff has not pressed for any other relief against any of the other defendants. Hence, the suit stands fully disposed of in terms of this judgment/order.
26. In view of the aforesaid findings of the Court, a Decree of Permanent Injunction is passed in favour of the plaintiff and against defendant no.8 namely Ms. Shikha Singh and/or any other assignees of the defendant, restraining them from using, registering, Digitally CS (Comm.) No.143/2024 Manash Lifestyle Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ashok Kumar & Ors. PREETI signed by 25/26 AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-02 West/Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi.
11.04.2026 re-registering, or in any manner dealing with the domain name purpllelady.com or any other mark/domain identical with the deceptively similar to the registered trade mark PURPLLE of the plaintiff.
Nothing more survives for adjudication in the present suit by virtue of this order/judgment.
Suit of the plaintiff is disposed of as decreed. Parties to bear their own costs.
Decree sheet be drawn accordingly.
File be consigned to Record Room, after due completion.
Announced in the open Court today
on this 11th day of April, 2026 PREETI
Digitally
signed by
AGRAWAL PREETI
GUPTA AGRAWAL
GUPTA
(PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-02 West/Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi.
11.04.2026 CS (Comm.) No.143/2024 Manash Lifestyle Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ashok Kumar & Ors. 26/26 (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-02 West/Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi.
11.04.2026