Archive · 9 Oct 2026
Delhi High Court Restrains Websites Misusing Jio for Gaming
Reliance Industries Limited told the Delhi High Court that 126 websites were using its Jio name for lottery and gaming services.
The company said this misused its trademark.
The court issued an order on October 7.
It stopped the websites from using Jio and similar names for these activities.
The order also covers promoting or operating services using those marks.
The court directed authorities to remove the websites.
It said deciding whether a website is “rogue” should depend on the quality of the assessment, not just a numerical approach.
The article does not state the year of the order.
The Delhi High Court restrained websites from using Jio-related marks for lottery and gaming services.
Reliance Industries Limited alleged that 126 platforms had misused its Jio trademark.
The court also directed authorities to remove the websites.
The October 7 order bars the platforms from operating, promoting, or otherwise dealing in the challenged marks.
The court said whether a website is “rogue” should be assessed qualitatively, not quantitatively.
- Who
- Reliance Industries Limited and websites alleged to have misused its Jio trademark; the case was heard by Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav.
- What
- The Delhi High Court restrained the websites from using Jio and similar marks for lottery and gaming services and directed authorities to remove them.
- When
- The order was dated October 7; the year is not stated.
- Where
- Delhi, India.
- Why
- Reliance Industries Limited alleged that the websites infringed its registered trademarks by using Jio-related marks.
- Court
- Delhi High Court
- Claimant
- Reliance Industries Limited
- Websites cited
- 126 platforms, according to Reliance Industries Limited's allegation
- Order date
- October 7; year not stated
- Marks named
- Jio, Jio Lottery, and Jio Lottery Game, among others
- Services involved
- Lottery and gaming
- Website assessment
- The court said the test for a “rogue website” should be qualitative, not quantitative.