Delhi High Court – Orders
New Delhi Television Limited vs Ashok Kumar & Ors on 20 August, 2025
Author: Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
Bench: Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
$~53
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS(COMM) 869/2025, I.A. 20320/2025, I.A. 20321/2025, I.A.
20322/2025 & I.A. 20323/2025
NEW DELHI TELEVISION LIMITED .....Plaintiff
Through: Ms. Kripa Pandit, Mr. Prabhu
Tandon, Mr. Christopher Thomas,
Advocates
versus
ASHOK KUMAR & ORS. .....Defendants
Through: Mr. Yash Raj, Ms. Aishwarya Kane,
Advocates for D-9
Mr. Neel Mason, Mr. Udit Tewari,
Mr. Nikhil Bharti, Advs. for D-16
Mr. Madhav Khosla, Adv. for D-17
Mr. Varun Pathak, Ms. Amee Rana,
Mr. Akhil Shandilya, Ms. Charu
Sharma, Advocates for D-19
Ms. Nidhi Raman, CGSC with Mr.
Om Ram, Adv. for D-20 and D-21
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA
ORDER
% 20.08.2025
I.A. 202323/2025 (seeking extension of time for filing of Court fees)
1. Learned counsel for the Plaintiff states that the amount towards
purchase of Court fee already stands deposited.
2. In view of the averments made in application, the Plaintiff is directed
CS(COMM) 869/2025 Page 1 of 18
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/08/2025 at 22:18:03
to file the certificate within a period of one (1) week.
3. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of.
I.A. 20322/2025 (seeking leave to file additional documents)
4. This is an application filed by the Plaintiff seeking leave to file
additional documents under Order XI Rule 1(4) of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 [‘CPC‘] [as amended by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015]
read with Section 151 CPC.
5. The Plaintiff, if it wishes to file additional documents, will file the
same within thirty (30) days from today, and it shall do so strictly as per the
provisions of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and the Delhi High Court
(Original Side) Rules, 2018 (‘DHC Rules’).
6. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed.
7. Accordingly, the application is disposed of.
I.A. 20321/2025(seeking exemption from pre-institution mediation)
8. This is an application filed by the Plaintiff under Section 12A of the
Commercial Courts Act, 2015 read with Section 151 CPC, filed by the
Plaintiff seeking exemption from instituting pre-litigation mediation.
9. Having regard to the facts that the present suit contemplates urgent
interim relief and in light of the judgement of the Supreme Court in Yamini
Manohar v. T.K.D. Keerthi1, exemption from the requirement of pre-
institution mediation is granted to the Plaintiff.
10. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of.
CS(COMM) 869/2025
11. The present suit has been filed by the Plaintiff seeking relief of
permanent injunction and damages for infringement of trademark, passing
CS(COMM) 869/2025 Page 2 of 18
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/08/2025 at 22:18:03
off, infringement of copyright, and unfair competition, along with other
ancillary reliefs, against the Defendants.
12. Let the plaint be registered as a suit.
13. Issue summons.
14. Summons be issued to Defendant Nos. 2 to 8, 10 to 15, and 18 by all
permissible modes on filing of process fee. Affidavit of service(s) be filed
within two (2) weeks.
15. The summons shall indicate that the written statement(s) must be filed
within thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of the summons. The
Defendants shall also file affidavit(s) of admission/denial of the documents
filed by the Plaintiff, failing which the written statement(s) shall not be
taken on record.
16. The Plaintiff is at liberty to file replication(s) thereto within thirty (30)
days after filing of the written statement(s). The replication(s) shall be
accompanied by affidavit(s) of admission/denial in respect of the documents
filed by Defendants, failing which the replication(s) shall not be taken on
record.
17. It is made clear that any unjustified denial of documents may lead to
an order of costs against the concerned party.
18. Any party seeking inspection of documents may do so in accordance
with the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018.
19. Mr. Yash Raj, learned counsel on behalf of Defendant No. 9; Mr.
Madhav Khosla, learned counsel on behalf of Defendant No. 17; Mr. Varun
Pathak, learned counsel on behalf of Defendant No. 19; Ms. Nidhi Raman,
learned CGSC appearing on behalf of Defendant Nos. 20 and 21, accept
1
(2024) 5 SCC 815
CS(COMM) 869/2025 Page 3 of 18
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/08/2025 at 22:18:03
summons. They confirm the receipt of the suit paper-book and waive the
right of formal service of summons.
Since, Defendant Nos. 20 to 21 have been impleaded for seeking
compliance of the interim order, no direction is being issued to the said
Defendants for filing written statement(s).
20. Mr. Neel Mason, learned counsel is present in Court and since he
regularly appears for Defendant No. 16 in other suits, he has been directed to
accept summons in this matter as well.
21. Issuance of summons to Defendant No. 1, an unknown entity, is
deferred at this stage.
22. List before the learned Joint Registrar (J) on 08.10.2025.
23. List before Court on 10.02.2026.
I.A. 20320/2025 (Under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC)
24. The present application has been filed by the Plaintiff seeking ex-
parte ad-interim injunction restraining Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 from
infringing Plaintiff’s trademarks, passing off, and copyrights. Directions are
also sought against Defendant Nos. 3 to 21 for giving effect to the interim
directions passed against Defendant Nos. 1 and 2.
25. The case set up by the Plaintiff in the plaint may be summarized as
under: –
25.1. The Plaintiff Company has been a leader in India’s news broadcasting
and digital journalism since its founding in 1988, becoming one of the most
viewed and respected news networks in the country with a strong online
presence. The Plaintiff operates several prominent television news channels,
including NDTV 24×7, NDTV India, and various regional channels, all
recognized for high journalistic standards and editorial integrity. Its contentCS(COMM) 869/2025 Page 4 of 18
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/08/2025 at 22:18:03
is delivered to a global audience through NDTV World, reaching significant
Indian diaspora communities in countries such as the UK, US, Canada, and
many others in the SAARC region.
25.2. The Plaintiff has used its distinctive logo,
'NDTV2/ 3
/ 4
/ 5
', since 2003 in
association with its news television and digital journalism services. This
trademark has been in continuous use for over two decades, thereby
acquiring substantial goodwill and reputation among the public and trade
communities. The primary element of the logo, the word-mark ‘NDTV’, is
recognized for its strong brand identity throughout India. In addition to the
common law rights derived from its prolonged usage, the Plaintiff possesses
statutory rights to the trademark ‘NDTV’ and its various forms, supported
by multiple valid trademark registrations across several classes. Details of
select few registrations, which are valid and subsisting till date, are set out at
paragraph 11 of the plaint.
25.3. The Plaintiff’s official website, www.ndtv.com, serves as a key
platform for its business operations and prominently showcases its
trademark ‘NDTV’. The domain name was registered on 26.09.1996 (as per
the information available on www.whois.com) and remains valid and owned
by the Plaintiff. The website is accessible globally, including across all parts
of India, and prominently features the Plaintiff’s mark and brand identity
throughout its content and layout.
2
Trademark registration bearing No. 1686278 dated 12.05.2008.
3
Trademark registration bearing No. 1686277 dated 12.05.2008.
4
Trademark registration bearing No. 1686279 dated 12.05.2008.
5
Trademark registration bearing No. 1192400 dated 17.04.2003.
CS(COMM) 869/2025 Page 5 of 18
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/08/2025 at 22:18:03
25.4. The images, pictures, and photographs on the Plaintiff’s website,
www.ndtv.com, qualify as ‘artistic works’ under Section 2(c) of the
Copyright Act, 1957 (‘Copyright Act‘). According to Section 55(2) of the
Copyright Act, the presence of the Plaintiff’s name on the website presumes
the Plaintiff as the publisher of all literary and artistic works featured
therein. As the copyright owner of original content on its website and social
media, the Plaintiff holds exclusive rights as per Section 14 of the Copyright
Act, which includes the right to reproduce the works in any material form,
issue copies, and communicate the works to the public.
25.5. The Plaintiff asserts that an internet search for Plaintiff’s trademark
‘NDTV’ yields results exclusively linked to the Plaintiff, underscoring the
strong association and recognition of its trademark. Due to its longstanding
reputation, extensive viewership, and the trust it has cultivated among
consumers, the Plaintiff has achieved significant revenues over the years,
and the revenue generated for the F.Y. 2024-25 is Rs. 282.2 crores6.
25.6. The Plaintiff’s trademark ‘NDTV’ has been officially recognized and
declared a well-known trademark under Section 2(1)(zg) of the Trade Marks
Act, 1999. This declaration was made by the Trade Marks Registry in the
Trade Marks Journal No. 2194 dated 03.02.2025. The opposition period for
this declaration concluded on 03.06.2025, with no challenges filed.
25.7. The Plaintiff has significantly advertised and promoted its trademark
‘NDTV’ across diverse platforms, including print media such as newspapers
and magazines, as well as electronic and digital channels. The trademark has
been prominently featured in various advertisements and articles by third
parties, both online and offline. The Plaintiff has dedicated substantial time,
6
As mentioned at paragraph 15 of the plaint.
CS(COMM) 869/2025 Page 6 of 18
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/08/2025 at 22:18:03
effort, and resources–financial and human–to the promotion of the
trademark.
25.8. The Plaintiff generates significant advertisement revenue from third-
party brands and advertisers that opt to associate with its news channels and
digital platforms to promote their goods and services. The Plaintiff’s
extensive viewership has established it as a preferred and reliable platform
for advertisers across various sectors. Details of the advertising revenue
generated by the Plaintiff over the years are set out at paragraph 18 of the
plaint.
25.9. Plaintiff enjoys a significant and active presence with the verified
accounts across various social media platforms. Details and links to the
Plaintiff’s official social media accounts are set out at paragraph 20 of the
plaint.
25.10. Pertinently in July 2025, the Plaintiff became aware that Defendants
are infringing the Plaintiff’s copyright and well-known trademark ‘NDTV’
without any authorization or permission. The Defendants are found to be
hosting websites/URL’s/social media channels/messaging platforms
(‘impugned platforms’) and communicating with the public using the
Plaintiff’s registered trademarks, thereby misrepresenting themselves as
being associated with the Plaintiff.
26. Ms. Kripa Pandit, learned counsel for the Plaintiff states that as per
the Plaintiff’s knowledge Defendant No. 1 (i.e. unknown entity) and
Defendant No. 2 are operating websites that disseminate news content while
incorporating the Plaintiff’s registered trademark ‘NDTV’ as part of their
domain name.
She refers to the list of infringing domain names enlisted at paragraph
CS(COMM) 869/2025 Page 7 of 18
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/08/2025 at 22:18:03
31 of the plaint.
26.1. She states that the owner of the impugned website – https://ndtv-
news.com/ (Sr. No. 1) is operating a news channel in the name and style of
‘NDTV News/ , and as per the WHOIS records, the impugned
website was registered on 15.08.2023 through Defendant No. 2 i.e. Dynadot
Inc. She states that the impugned website clearly incorporates the Plaintiff’s
registered trademark ‘NDTV’. Screenshot of the impugned website is set out
at paragraph 34 of the plaint.
26.2. She states that the owner of the impugned website – https://ndtv-
hindu.com/ (Sr. No. 2) is operating a website in the name and style of
‘NDTV Hindu/ ‘. As per the WHOIS records, the impugned
website was registered on 28.11.2023 through Defendant No. 4 i.e.
NameCheap, Inc. She states that the impugned website clearly incorporates
the Plaintiff’s registered trademark ‘NDTV’. Screenshot of the impugned
website is set out at paragraph 35 of the plaint.
26.3. She states that the owner of the impugned website –
https://ndtvforums.com/ (Sr. No. 3) is operating a website that appears to be
an online forum which engages users in news related discussions. She states
that as per the WHOIS records, the impugned website was registered on
26.08.2024 through Defendant No. 5 i.e. BigRock Solutions Limited. She
states that the Plaintiff’s investigation also revealed that Defendant No. 2 is
the owner/registrant of this impugned website. She states that the impugned
website clearly incorporates the Plaintiff’s registered trademark ‘NDTV’.
Screenshot of the impugned website is set out in paragraph 36 of the plaint.
26.4. She states that the owner of the impugned website –
CS(COMM) 869/2025 Page 8 of 18
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/08/2025 at 22:18:03
https://www.ndtvbd.com/ (Sr. No. 4) is operating a Bengali language news
channel in the name and style of ‘NDTV BD News/ ‘.
She states that the impugned website closely imitates and copies the
Plaintiff’s registered trademark ‘NDTV’, with the intent to capitalize on the
established goodwill and reputation of the Plaintiff Company. She states that
the inclusion of the word ‘BD’ in small fonts does not alter the overall
impression and deceptive similarity with the Plaintiff’s well-known
trademark ‘NDTV’. As per the WHOIS records, the impugned website was
registered on 17.08.2021 through Defendant No. 6 i.e. Sav.com, LLC.
Screenshot of the impugned website is set out at paragraph 37 of the plaint.
26.5. She states that the impugned website – https://ndtvnewschannel.com/
(Sr. No. 5) is an online news website that has reproduced the Plaintiff’s
registered trademark NDTV in entirety, more specifically the name and style
of the impugned website ‘NDTV New Channel/ ‘ has been
replicated in a manner that makes it identical/deceptively similar to the
Plaintiff’s well-known and widely popular device-mark ‘ ‘.
She states that the use of the font, colors, and even the globe device between
the letters of ‘N’ and ‘D’ resembles the Plaintiff’s registered trademarks
‘NDTV/ / / ‘. She states that
Defendant No. 1 is not only infringing the Plaintiff’s trademarks but is also
passing off itself as associated with the Plaintiff Company by adopting the
CS(COMM) 869/2025 Page 9 of 18
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/08/2025 at 22:18:03
Plaintiff’s well-known trademark in the domain name and using the same for
identical news broadcasting services. She states that as per the WHOIS
records, the impugned website was registered on 04.04.2019 through
Defendant No. 7 i.e. GoDaddy India Domains Services Private Limited and
Defendant No. 8 i.e GoDaddy.com, LLC. Screenshot of the impugned
website is set out in paragraph 38 of the Plaint.
26.6. She states that the impugned website – https://ndtv24.in/ (Sr. No. 6)
has been created under the name and style of ‘NDTV 24/
‘. She states that the adoption of ‘NDTV’ by the
Defendant No. 1 in the impugned website as well as the adoption of a
deceptively and confusingly similar logo on the impugned website clearly
amounts to a violation of the Plaintiff’s trademarks. She states that as per the
WHOIS records, the impugned website was registered on 29.07.2021
through Defendant No. 9 i.e., Porkbun LLC. Screenshot of the impugned
website is set out at paragraph 39 of the plaint.
26.7. She states that the impugned websites at Sr. No. 7-14, have
incorporated the Plaintiff’s registered trademark ‘NDTV’ within their
domain names, and these websites are inactive (at the time of filing the
present suit) however, the domain names are still registered and is active.
She states that given that these domains/ URL’s have not expired and are
still valid domains, the Plaintiff has a strong apprehension that the impugned
websites may become active again in the future if not restrained/ suspended/
blocked by the Court.
26.8. She states that the impugned websites are registered with Defendant
Nos. 3 to 15 and therefore interim directions are sought against the said
CS(COMM) 869/2025 Page 10 of 18
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/08/2025 at 22:18:03
Defendants for locking and suspending the domain names of the impugned
websites.
26.9. She states that Plaintiff has also discovered that unknown Defendant
No. 1 is hosting multiple channels on YouTube/Defendant No. 16’s platform
that incorporate the Plaintiff’s registered trademark, ‘NDTV’, without any
authorization. She states that these YouTube channels are using the
Plaintiff’s registered trademark to share video content with public in a
manner that is likely to cause confusion among the public as to the origin of
the content.
She refers to the list of the Defendant No.1’s infringing YouTube
channels enlisted in paragraph 41 of the plaint, where the Plaintiff’s
registered trademark ‘NDTV’ and its formative marks are being used.
26.10. She states that the unknown Defendant No. 1 is operating various
groups on Telegram/Defendant No. 17’s platform which entirely
incorporates the Plaintiff’s registered trademark ‘NDTV’, which is clearly
intended to confuse the public into believing that these Telegram Groups are
affiliated with or endorsed by the Plaintiff, when in fact no such affiliation
or connection exists. She further states that the illegal adoption and use of
the Plaintiff’s registered logo ‘ and ‘ on
Defendant No. 1’s Telegram Groups without permission amounts to
infringement of the Plaintiff trademarks.
She refers to a list of the infringing Telegram Groups enlisted at
paragraph 42 of the plaint, which are operating on Defendant No. 17’s
platform.
26.11. She states that a large number of unauthorized and anonymous X
CS(COMM) 869/2025 Page 11 of 18
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/08/2025 at 22:18:03
(formerly Twitter)/Defendant No. 18’s handles, including but not limited to
the 120 plus impugned handles, are unlawfully incorporating the Plaintiff’s
registered trademark ‘NDTV’ as part of their usernames, display names,
and/or bios. She further states that these impugned handles are
masquerading as legitimate affiliates, extensions, or representatives of the
Plaintiff and are using the Plaintiff’s trademark without authorization or
license in a manner that is calculated to deceive the public.
She refers to list of these impugned handles enlisted at paragraph 44
of the plaint, operating on Defendant No. 18’s platform.
26.12. She states that the Plaintiff has identified multiple Facebook accounts
and pages (Defendant No. 19) that unlawfully impersonate Plaintiff and
falsely claim affiliation with or endorsement by the Plaintiff. She states that
these accounts and pages uses the Plaintiff’s registered trademark ‘NDTV’ in
various capacities, including page names and visual elements, to mislead
viewers into believing that they are official representations of the Plaintiff.
She asserts that these accounts infringe upon her intellectual property rights
and unjustly exploit the goodwill associated with her NDTV marks,
resulting in acts of passing off, dilution, trademark infringement, and unjust
enrichment
She refers to the list of such impugned accounts/pages enlisted at
paragraph 46 of the plaint.
26.13. She states that the impugned handles/accounts/pages of Defendant
Nos. 16, 17, 18 and 19 pose a serious risk to democratic discourse,
journalistic integrity, and public perception, as the general public may
mistakenly attribute the false, misleading, or inflammatory content posted by
these accounts to that of the Plaintiff’s. She also states that such
CS(COMM) 869/2025 Page 12 of 18
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/08/2025 at 22:18:03
impersonation, coupled with the unauthorized use of the Plaintiff’s well-
known trademarks, amounts to a concerted digital attack on the Plaintiff’s
identity and standing as a credible news organization.
26.14. She states that the Defendant Nos. 1 and 2’s impugned websites,
social media accounts, links and channels are disseminating, reposting, and
broadcasting news content that is frequently unverified, inaccurate, and
speculative, misrepresenting it as originating from or being endorsed by the
Plaintiff. She states that the inclusion of the Plaintiff’s well-known
trademark ‘NDTV’ on these platforms constitutes a deliberate act of
misrepresentation, aimed at exploiting the Plaintiff’s reputation, goodwill,
and journalistic credibility.
26.15. She submits that the Defendant No. 20/Department of
Telecommunications (DOT) and Defendant No. 21/ Ministry of Electronics
and Information Technology (MeitY) are necessary parties for facilitating
compliance of the orders passed vis-à-vis take down of the impugned
websites enlisted in paragraph 31 of the plaint.
27. This Court has considered the submissions of the learned counsel for
the Plaintiff.
28. It is a matter of record that Plaintiff is the registered proprietor of its
trademark ‘NDTV’ and its formatives /
/ . The Plaintiff’s trademark ‘NDTV’ has also
been declared as a well-known trademark by the Trade Marks Registry in
the Trade Journal dated 03.02.2025. The Plaintiff Company was founded in
the year 1988 and has been in the business of news broadcasting and digital
journalism since then.
CS(COMM) 869/2025 Page 13 of 18
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/08/2025 at 22:18:03
29. Upon perusal of the plaint, documents placed on record, and the
arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the Plaintiff, this Court is of
the prima facie opinion that Defendants are indulging in unauthorisedly
using/promoting deceptively similar variants of the Plaintiff’s trademark
‘NDTV’ and trying to create an impression to the general public that they
are connected/associated with the Plaintiff Company.
30. The submission of the Plaintiff that the viewers may be misled to
believe that the discourse or information being shared on the aforesaid
impugned websites, accounts, links or channels is from the Plaintiff itself,
appears to be plausible. The trademark ‘NDTV’ has been used by the
Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 in its entirety.
31. In view of the above, the Plaintiff has made out a prima facie case for
the grant of ex-parte ad-interim injunction. The balance of convenience also
lies in favour of the Plaintiff and the infringing actions of the Defendants, if
not restrained, shall cause irreparable harm to the Plaintiff which cannot be
compensated in the monetary terms.
32. Accordingly, till the next date of hearing, the following directions are
hereby issued: –
32.1. Defendant No. 1 (an unknown entity), Defendant No. 2, their
associates, business partners, servant, employees, and all others in capacity
of principal or agent acting for and on their behalf, or any person involved
with Defendant Nos. l and 2 are restrained from infringing the Plaintiff’s
registered trademark ‘NDTV’ and its formatives and/or any other
deceptively similar variant/s thereof, in any manner, including, domain
names, websites, social media handles, messaging platforms, Company
names, or any business papers, etc. or in any other manner which amounts toCS(COMM) 869/2025 Page 14 of 18
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/08/2025 at 22:18:03
infringement of the Plaintiff’s trademarks/passing off and copyrights.
32.2. The Defendant No. 3 (Dynadot Inc.) , Defendant No. 4 (Name Cheap
Inc), Defendant No. 5 (BigRock Solutions Limited), Defendant No. 6
(Sav.com LLC), Defendant No. 7 (GoDaddy India Domains and Hosting) ,
Defendant No. 8 (GoDaddy.com LLC), Defendant No. 9 (Porkbun LLC),
Defendant No. 10 (Frontstreetdomains.com LLC), Defendant No. 11
(IONOS SE), Defendant No. 12 (HOSTINGER operations), Defendant No.
13 (Go China Domains LLC), Defendant No. 14 (GMO Internet Group, Inc.
D/B/A onamae.com), and Defendant No. 15 (Name.com Inc.) are directed to
lock and suspend the domains/URLs of the thirteen (13) impugned websites
as reproduced in Paragraph 31 of the plaint. They are also directed to
disclose complete details and file the complete KYC documents including
payment details of the registrant of the impugned websites, within three (3)
weeks from date of receipt of this order from the Plaintiff.
32.3. The Defendant No. 16 (Google LLC/YouTube) is directed
to suspend/block/remove thirty-five (35) impugned channels as reproduced
in Paragraph 41 of the plaint. They are further directed to disclose the email
addresses and other associated information for these channels, within three
(3) weeks from date of receipt of this order, from the Plaintiff.
32.4. The Defendant No. 17 (Telegram FZ-LLC) is directed to
suspend/block/remove sixteen (16) impugned Telegram Channels as
reproduced in Paragraph 42 of the plaint. They are also directed to disclose
IP addresses and other associated information for these accounts, within
three (3) weeks from date of receipt of this order from the Plaintiff.
32.5. The Defendant No. 18 (X Corp.) is directed to suspend/block/remove
the one hundred and twenty-one (121) impugned handles as reproduced in
CS(COMM) 869/2025 Page 15 of 18
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/08/2025 at 22:18:03
Paragraph 44 of the plaint. They are also directed to disclose IP addresses
and other associated information for these handles, within three (3) weeks
from date of receipt of this order from the Plaintiff.
32.6. The Defendant No. 19 (Meta Platforms) is directed to
suspend/block/remove the eighty-six (86) impugned account/pages as
reproduced in Paragraph 46 of the plaint. They are also directed to disclose
IP addresses and other associated information for these accounts, within
three (3) weeks from date of receipt of this order from the Plaintiff.
32.7. The Defendant No. 20 (DOT) and Defendant No. 21(MeitY) are
directed to issue a notification calling upon the various internet service
providers (ISPs) and telecom service providers, registered under it to block
access to the various websites identified by the Plaintiff in the instant suit or
such other websites that may subsequently be notified by the Plaintiff.
32.8. Defendant Nos. 3 to 21 will comply with the directions issued in this
order within 48 hours from receipt of the copy of this Order.
32.9. The Defendant No. 2 is directed to disclose, on oath, all the amounts
and revenues as earned from the illegal exploitation of Plaintiff’s
trademarks.
32.10. The Plaintiff is directed to maintain confidentiality of the BSI7 and
other information provided by Defendant Nos. 3-15, 16, 17, 18 and 19; the
Plaintiff shall use this information only for legal purpose.
33. Learned counsel for the Plaintiff states that to avoid multiplicity of
proceedings, the Plaintiff be granted leave to approach this Court for seeking
impleadment of any similar websites or social media handles or groups or
links or channels, which are similarly infringing the trademark of the
7
Basic Subscriber Information
CS(COMM) 869/2025 Page 16 of 18
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/08/2025 at 22:18:03
Plaintiff.
33.1. It is thus directed that if any other websites or social media handles or
groups or links or channels are found to be directly or indirectly infringing
Plaintiff’s rights, the Plaintiff will be at liberty to file an appropriate
application under Order I Rule 10 CPC for impleading the said websites or
social media handles or groups or links or channels along with an affidavit
with sufficient supporting evidence for seeking extension of the injunction
to such websites or social media handles or groups or links or channels.
Upon filing such applications before the Registrar, if the Registrar is
satisfied, the websites will be impleaded and the injunction passed today
shall be made operational against the said newly impleaded websites or
social media handles or groups or links or channels.
34. If any website and or social media handles or groups or links or
channels, which is not primarily an infringing website or social media
handles or groups or links or channels, is blocked in pursuance of the
present order, the said website or social media handles or groups or links or
channels is permitted to approach this Court by giving an undertaking that it
does not intend to infringe the Plaintiff’s trademarks and thereafter, the
Court would consider modifying the injunction accordingly.
35. Issue Notice.
36. Mr. Yash Raj, learned counsel on behalf of Defendant No. 9; Mr.
Neel Mason, learned counsel on behalf of Defendant No. 16; Mr. Madhav
Khosla, learned counsel on behalf of Defendant No. 17; Mr. Varun Pathak,
learned counsel on behalf of Defendant No. 19; Ms. Nidhi Raman, learned
CGSC appearing on behalf of Defendant Nos. 20 and 21, accepts notice and
waives formal service of notice.
CS(COMM) 869/2025 Page 17 of 18
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/08/2025 at 22:18:03
37. Learned counsel for the Plaintiff states that attempts were made to
reach Mr. Deepak Gogia, Advocate who routinely appears for Defendant
No. 18 in other suits. She states that an advance copy of the suit has also
been served on him. She states however the said counsel has not responded.
38. Issue notice to remaining Defendant Nos. 2 to 8, 10 to 15, and 18
through all permissible modes including e-mode, by the registry.
39. Issuance of notice to Defendant No. 1, an unknown entity, is deferred
at this stage.
40. It is clarified that since Defendant Nos. 20 to 21 have been impleaded
for seeking compliance of the interim order, no direction is being issued to
the said Defendants for filing reply to this application. However, the said
Defendants are directed to inform this Court about the compliance of the
interim order by way of filing affidavits within three (3) weeks.
41. Let the reply to this application be filed by remaining Defendants
within a period of three (3) weeks.
42. Rejoinder thereto, if any, be filed within a period of three (3) weeks
thereafter.
43. The provisions of Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC shall be complied
within ten (10) days from today. Affidavit of service be filed within two (2)
weeks.
44. List before the learned Joint Registrar (J) on 08.10.2025.
45. List before Court on 10.02.2026.
MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J
AUGUST 20, 2025/mt/AM
CS(COMM) 869/2025 Page 18 of 18
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/08/2025 at 22:18:03