The Delhi High Court has restrained a person from using the websites he created in the name of Tata group Chairman, Cyrus Pallonji Mistry, saying the sites were created to “blatantly and illegally” capitalise on the well-known name of the business tycoon.
Justice Manmohan Singh directed the private person to transfer the sites, www.cyrusmistry.co.uk and www.cyrusmistry.co, in favour of Mistry.
“The loss and damage incurred by the plaintiffs (Tata and Mistry) is also on account of loss of reputation and goodwill of the plaintiffs/its Chairman and companies promoted by him in the market. The defendant (Aniket Sigh) is blatantly and illegally capitalizing on the strength of use of the well known personal name of plaintiff 2 i.e Cyrus P Mistry for the purposes of making illegal profit and gain.
“In light of the submissions on merit by passing the decree for permanent injunction, it is also directed that the impugned websites www.cyrusmistry.co.uk and www.cyrusmistry.co are to be transferred in favour of plaintiff No. 2 who is also Chairman of plaintiff No. 1 company (Tata),” the court said
The court also imposed punitive costs of Rs five lakh on the defendant and directed that the amount be deposited with the Delhi High Court Library Fund.
The judge noted that the domain names were created on December 20, 2011, barely a month after Tata group announced that Mistry would be taking over as Chairman from December 2012.
Referring to an email sent by the defendant to the company on February 4, 2012, the court said the communication “clearly brings to the fore the threatening tone of the defendant”. “The underlying tenor of the email is a manifestation of the ulterior motive of the defendant to extort money illegally and unfairly from the plaintiffs,” the court noted in its 17-page order.
“The malafide intent of the defendant is further rendered evident from the fact that when the plaintiffs’ advocates somehow got in touch with the defendant over the telephone requiring him to transfer the impugned domain names to the plaintiffs, the defendant maintained a non-committal stance,” the court said.