Court Restrains Defendants from Using Deceptively Similar Domain Names and Calls for Legislative Amendments to Address Dynamic Injunction Challenges
In a significant judgment delivered on March 16, 2026, the Delhi High Court, presided over by Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, granted a decree of permanent injunction in favor of Mahindra and Mahindra Limited, restraining the defendants from using domain names deceptively similar to the plaintiff's well-known registered trademark "Mahindra." This judgment brings to a close the civil suit numbered CS(COMM) 209 of 2023, filed by Mahindra against Diksha Sharma, proprietor of Mahindra Packers Movers, and others.
The court's decision emphasized the protection of intellectual property rights, particularly trademarks, in the face of technological advancements and internet misuse. The plaintiffs argued that the defendants' use of the "Mahindra" name in various domain names misled customers into believing an association with the well-established Mahindra Group, causing trademark infringement and potential damage to their brand reputation.
Justice Gedela granted the plaintiffs' request for a permanent injunction, thereby prohibiting the defendants from operating businesses under infringing domain names. The court also mandated the blocking and suspension of specified domain names, including www.mahindrapackers.com and its variations, which were found to infringe on the trademark rights of Mahindra. Additionally, the Department of Telecommunications was directed to issue notifications to block these websites.
However, the court declined the plaintiffs' request to empower the Joint Registrar to extend the judgment to mirror, redirect, or alphanumeric websites post-judgment, citing the doctrine of functus officio. The court clarified that once a judgment is pronounced, it cannot entertain applications for extension or modification unless under specific provisions like Section 152 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) for correcting clerical errors.
This ruling also highlighted the urgent need for legislative amendments to the CPC and IT Rules to effectively address dynamic injunctions and the challenges posed by the misuse of internet platforms in intellectual property rights disputes. The court advised the Legislature and Central Government to take swift action to align legal provisions with technological advancements.
The judgment referenced several precedents, including the Supreme Court's decision in Mahendra & Mahendra Paper Mills Ltd. v. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd., which recognized "Mahindra" as a well-known trademark. It also noted the judgments in UTV Software Communication Ltd. v. 1337X.To and Universal City Studios LLC v. Mixdrop Co., which dealt with similar issues of dynamic injunctions.
Bottom Line:
Trademark infringement - A decree of permanent injunction granted restraining defendants from using the plaintiffs' registered trademarks deceptively similar to "Mahindra." Dynamic injunction regarding mirror/redirect/alphanumeric websites post-judgment deemed impermissible as court becomes functus officio.
Statutory provision(s): Sections 151, 152, Order XX, Order I Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908
