Delhi High Court: In a present suit filed seeking relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from passing off the trademark, along with other ancillary reliefs, Amit Bansal, J., stated that Defendant 1 had taken unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of the plaintiffs’ marks and had also deceived the unwary consumers of their association with the plaintiff, by dishonestly adopting the plaintiff’s mark without any plausible explanation.
Thus, the Court granted a decree of permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against Defendant 1. The Court stated that the plaintiff was entitled to restrain the defendants from using the plaintiff’s name and marks without authorization from the plaintiff.
Background
Peak XV Partners Advisors India LLP (‘Plaintiff 1’), formerly Sequoia Capital India LLP, was a venture capital and investment advisory firm that advises foreign funds investing in India and Southeast Asia under the brand ‘PEAK XV PARTNERS’. Peak XV Partners Operations LLC (‘Plaintiff 2’), formerly Sequoia Capital India Operations II LLC, was a Mauritius-based company regulated by the Mauritius Financial Services Commission as an ‘Investment Advisor (Restricted)’.
The plaintiffs provide investment advisory services to funds supporting start-ups across various sectors, including artificial intelligence, machine learning fintech, health-tech, climate-tech etc. across India and South-East Asia.
Plaintiff 1 started its operations in India in 2006 as ‘Sequoia Capital India’, as an authorized user of ‘Sequoia Capital’. In June 2023, Sequoia Capital and SEA was rebranded to PEAK XV PARTNERS. It was stated that the brand name ‘PEAK XV’ was inspired by the original moniker given to Mount Everest in the 1850s by the British Survey before it was officially renamed. For the plaintiffs, the name ‘PEAK XV’ symbolized the relentless pursuit of excellence by its founders despite challenges.
Defendant 1 was operating a fraudulent trading and investment scheme through the website https://pakxv.ioyppp.com/ and the mobile application ‘PAK XV’, misrepresenting itself as affiliated with the plaintiffs.
In December 2023, Plaintiff 1 discovered the activities carried out by Defendant 1 through its website and the mobile application. The plaintiffs found that Defendant 1’s branding, including the domain name, colour scheme, and trade marks Pak XV, were deceptively similar to ‘PEAK XV PARTNERS’. The platform falsely claimed to offer investment opportunities such as IPOs, Venture Capital Services (‘VCS’), and Value-averaging Investment Plans (‘VIPs’).
The Court had granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction restraining Defendant 1 from using the trade names/marks ‘PEAK XV PARTNERS’, 
, 
, 
.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court stated that the plaintiff’s name and marks were used by Defendant 1 with the clear intent to defraud and deceive the public. It was apparent that Defendant 1 was attempting to defraud the public by falsely claiming to offer investment advice through WhatsApp/Telegram Groups, website and mobile which they claim, were associated with the plaintiff.
The Court stated that the unauthorized actions of Defendant 1, including the creation and operation of fraudulent WhatsApp/Telegram groups, websites and mobile apps, have given rise to substantial confusion, leading individuals to falsely believe that the impugned groups and website are authorized, associated, and affiliated with the plaintiff.
Thus, the Court stated that based on the discussion, a case of passing off was made out. Defendant 1 had taken unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of the plaintiffs’ marks and had also deceived the unwary consumers of their association with the plaintiff by dishonestly adopting the plaintiff’s mark without any plausible explanation.
The Court noted that Defendant 1, the contesting defendant, was an unknown entity who was passing off the plaintiff’s mark and logo. Since, Defendant 1 had failed to take any requisite steps to contest the present suit, despite having suffered an ad-interim injunction order, it was evident that it had no defence to put forth on merits. Accordingly, the plaintiff was entitled to restrain the aforesaid defendant from using the plaintiff’s name and marks without authorization from the plaintiff.
Thus, the Court granted a decree of permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against Defendant 1.
[Peak XV Partners Advisors India LLP v. John Doe, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 2096, decided on 26-03-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Plaintiffs: Akshay Maloo, Yatinder Garg and Astha Sehgal, Advocates.
For the Defendants: Vedansh Anand, Advocate.
