SNV Aviation Secures Relief Against Fraudulent Activities Impersonating Its Brand
The Delhi High Court, presided over by Justice Ms. Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, has issued a significant ruling favoring SNV Aviation Private Limited, widely recognized for its brand AKASA AIR, in a case against Alaska Aviation Academy Private Limited and others. The judgment, dated December 22, 2025, addresses serious allegations of trademark infringement and fraudulent activities masquerading as employment opportunities under the guise of SNV Aviation's reputed brand.
SNV Aviation had approached the court seeking urgent relief against entities allegedly involved in impersonating the airline and conducting job scams. The defendants were accused of using deceptively similar trademarks, including "AKASA," "AKASA AIR," and other variations, to mislead job seekers and extract money under false pretenses. The court acknowledged the urgency of the matter, granting SNV Aviation an exemption from the requirement of pre-litigation mediation to address the immediate threat posed by these activities.
The court found a prima facie case of misrepresentation, deception, and passing off, leading to irreparable harm to SNV Aviation's reputation and goodwill. Consequently, a permanent injunction was issued, restraining the infringing parties from continuing such activities. The court also directed the suspension and locking of infringing domain names, disclosure of KYC details, and blocking of mobile numbers and UPI IDs used in the fraudulent operations.
Justice Arora's order emphasized the necessity of the injunction to protect both SNV Aviation's interests and the general public from the ongoing scams. The judgment aligns with the Supreme Court's precedent in Yamini Manohar v. T.K.D. Keerthi (2024) 5 SCC 815, which allows bypassing pre-litigation mediation for urgent reliefs.
SNV Aviation is a renowned airline with a substantial market presence, having achieved significant sales and market recognition since its inception in 2021. The court's decision marks a crucial victory in safeguarding its brand identity against malicious impersonation and fraudulent schemes.
Bottom Line:
Trademark Infringement - The court granted an injunction restraining infringing defendants from impersonating the plaintiff, using deceptively similar trademarks, and engaging in fraudulent activities that cause harm to the plaintiff's reputation and public trust.
Statutory provision(s): Commercial Courts Act, 2015 Section 12A, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Section 151, Trademark Law
