Court restrains defendant from using deceptively similar marks and publishing defamatory videos targeting Physicswallah's brand and reputation on social media platforms
In a significant judgment delivered on January 23, 2026, the Delhi High Court granted an ad interim injunction in favor of Physicswallah Limited, a renowned educational services provider, restraining a former employee, Nikhil Kumar Singh, from publishing defamatory and disparaging content and infringing upon its registered trademarks on social media.
Physicswallah Limited, a public-listed unicorn startup founded by Mr. Alakh Pandey, has built a formidable reputation since 2014 by offering affordable, high-quality educational content and coaching for competitive examinations such as JEE and NEET. The company operates over 207 active YouTube channels with nearly 98.8 million subscribers and boasts an extensive network of offline centers and smart classrooms across India. The brand "Physics Wallah" and various related marks are registered trademarks, protected under the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
The plaintiff instituted the suit against Defendant No.1, a former employee who operates the coaching institute 'AIR Cartel' and maintains a YouTube channel with over 16,000 subscribers. It was alleged that the defendant published multiple videos and social media posts calling Physicswallah a "scam" and used marks deceptively similar to the plaintiff's trademarks, such as "Emotion Wallah" and "Scam Wallah," which were calculated to cause confusion among consumers and damage the plaintiff’s goodwill.
The Court examined the evidence, including transcripts of the videos and comparative charts of the trademarks, and found prima facie that the defendant’s marks were deceptively similar and likely to cause confusion. The defamatory content was held to be malicious and abusive, aimed at running a negative campaign against Physicswallah and its employees to promote the defendant’s competing venture.
While Defendant No.1 claimed the right to freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India, the Court emphasized that this right is not absolute and is subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2), especially when speech is defamatory or maliciously injurious to reputation. The Court underscored the constitutional balance between freedom of speech and the right to reputation, an integral part of the right to life under Article 21.
Drawing upon precedents including recent decisions of the Delhi High Court and Supreme Court, the Court observed that injunctions are warranted in cases where online content is ex facie defamatory and disparaging, particularly when trademark rights and commercial goodwill are at stake. The Court noted the irreparable harm that could result if defamatory content remains accessible given the speed and reach of social media.
Accordingly, the Court directed Defendant No.1 to take down the impugned videos and social media posts within five days. Failure to comply would authorize the intermediaries - Defendants No.2, 3, and 4 (platform providers) - to remove the content. Additionally, the defendant was restrained from publishing any further infringing or disparaging content involving the Physicswallah marks or its employees until the next hearing. Compliance affidavits from the intermediaries were mandated within four weeks.
The suit is slated for final hearing on March 27, 2026.
This judgment reinforces the protective ambit of trademark law and defamation principles in the digital age, emphasizing that freedom of expression does not extend to malicious disparagement or trademark infringement, thereby safeguarding the reputation and commercial interests of established brands.
Bottom Line:
Plaintiff entitled to ad interim injunction against former employee for defamatory videos, disparagement, and trademark infringement on social media; freedom of speech is subject to reasonable restrictions and does not protect malicious or defamatory content.
Statutory provision(s): Trade Marks Act, 1999 (Trademark Infringement and Passing Off), Constitution of India, 1950 (Articles 19(1)(a), 19(2), 21), Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (Section 12-A), Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2, Section 151)
Physicswallah Limited v. Nikhil Kumar Singh, (Delhi) : Law Finder Doc id # 2844941
