The case is titled "New Delhi Television Limited versus Ashok Kumar & Ors." The order was dated August 20, 2025, and the case bears the number CS(COMM) 869/2025. The matter was heard in the High Court of Delhi, authored by Hon'ble Ms. Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora. There is no specific neutral citation provided in the document.
The suit was filed by the plaintiff, New Delhi Television Limited (NDTV), a well-established and respected company in India’s news broadcasting and digital journalism sector since 1988. NDTV holds multiple trademark registrations for the mark "NDTV" and its variants and has been declared a well-known trademark by the Trade Marks Registry. The plaintiff claimed extensive goodwill and reputation associated with its brand due to long-term use, advertisements, and substantial revenue generation, including advertising revenue of over Rs. 282 crores in the financial year 2024-25.
The core dispute concerns the infringement of NDTV’s trademark rights and copyrights by the defendants. The plaintiff alleged that Defendant No. 1 (an unknown entity) and Defendant No. 2 were operating websites and social media platforms that unlawfully used the plaintiff’s registered trademark "NDTV" and similar variants without authorization. These impugned platforms included multiple domain names and channels on YouTube, Telegram groups, and social media handles on X (formerly Twitter) and Facebook, which the plaintiff claimed were deceptively similar or identical to its well-known mark. The defendants allegedly misrepresented an association with NDTV, causing potential confusion among the public. The plaintiff also accused the defendants of disseminating unverified and inaccurate news content under the plaintiff’s trademark, thereby harming its brand’s credibility and journalistic integrity. The plaintiff sought permanent injunction and damages for trademark infringement, passing off, copyright infringement, and unfair competition.
The court’s decision granted the plaintiff an ex-parte ad-interim injunction to restrain the defendants, particularly Defendant Nos. 1 and 2, from using the NDTV trademarks and any deceptively similar variations across various platforms, domains, social media, and business papers. The court directed several domain registrars and platform operators (Defendants Nos. 3 to 19) to lock, suspend, or remove the infringing websites, channels, and social media accounts within 48 hours of receiving the order and to disclose relevant subscriber information to the plaintiff within three weeks. The Department of Telecommunications and the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology were also directed to issue notifications to ISPs and telecom providers to block access to the infringing websites. The court recognized the strong prima facie case made by the plaintiff, indicating that the defendants’ actions would cause irreparable harm that could not be compensated with monetary damages alone. The plaintiff was also given liberty to seek impleadment of any other similar infringing websites or accounts that may surface during the proceedings. The court clarified that non-infringing websites inadvertently affected by the order could seek modification of the injunction on providing suitable undertakings.
The legal principle settled in this case centers on the protection of well-known trademarks against unauthorized use, domain name infringement, and the liability of registrars and platform providers to act promptly in preventing trademark violations online. The case reinforces the enforcement of intellectual property rights in the digital ecosystem by allowing courts to grant interim injunctions that include blocking and suspending infringing digital assets and directing disclosure of subscriber information for enforcement. Additionally, the case highlights the significance of trademark rights in preserving journalistic integrity and preventing public deception through false associations in the media landscape.
Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi
Disclaimer: This information report is intended for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
