In the case of Starbucks Corporation and Anr v. National Interest Exchange of India Starbucks filed a claim alleging that a number of unidentified entities were falsely representing themselves as its authorized franchisees and deceiving the public. According to section 103 of the Trade Marks Act of 1999, those found guilty of falsely representing themselves face up to three years in prison and fines of up to Rs. 2,00,000. Furthermore, they asserted that the unlicensed representatives’ earnings were being deposited in a bank in Mumbai’s Lower Parel. Therefore, the plaintiffs asked the court to prevent these organizations from defrauding the public and obtaining, and misusing money.
In addition, the petitioners asked Google to deactivate the unauthorised email address email@example.com and to reveal the identity of the email ID’s owner .access to the domain names stated in the complaint to be blocked. Added a request for the bank account number mentioned in the plaint to be frozen and gave the bank instructions to tell the court who the account holder is.
Justice C. Hari Shankar of the Delhi High Court’s single-judge panel said that because imposters were pretending to be Starbucks franchisees without authorization in this case, the Court was compelled to intervene. As a result, the Court filed the plaint as a lawsuit. Additionally, the Court temporarily barred a few unidentified entities from falsely representing themselves as Starbucks franchisees and the Court directed that a phone number identified by the plaintiffs be blocked, as well as that the owner of the number’s identity be made public.