Delhi High Court: In an application filed by New Delhi Television (‘NDTV’) seeking an ex-parte ad-interim injunction to restrain Defendants No. 1 and 2 from infringing its trademarks, committing acts of passing off, and violating its copyrights, as well as seeking directions against Defendants 3 to 21 for enforcing interim reliefs against Defendants No. 1 and 2, a Single Judge Bench of Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora,J. granted relief in favour of NDTV. The Court observed that Defendants 1 and 2 had used the trade mark ‘NDTV’ in its entirety and, if not restrained, their actions would cause irreparable harm to the NDTV, which could not be adequately compensated in monetary terms. The Court formed a prima facie opinion that the defendants were engaging in unauthorised use and promotion of deceptively similar variants of the NDTV trade mark with the apparent intent to mislead the public into believing that they were connected or associated with NDTV.
The Court passed an ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining Defendants 1 and 2 from infringing NDTV’s registered trademark ‘NDTV’, its formatives, and any other deceptively similar variants, in any manner whatsoever, including through domain names, websites, social media handles, messaging platforms, company names, or business documents or in any other form that would amount to trade mark infringement, passing off, or copyright violation. Further, Defendants 3 to 21 were directed to give effect to the said directions and ensure compliance within 48 hours from receipt of the order.
Background:
New Delhi Television (‘NDTV’)-NDTV, a leader in India’s news broadcasting and digital journalism was founded in 1988, and became one of the most viewed and respected news networks in the country with a strong online presence. NDTV 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 content was 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.
NDTV, has used its distinctive logo ‘NDTV/ 
/, 
/, 
since 2003 in association with its news, television and digital journalism services, establishing over two decades of continuous use and acquiring substantial goodwill and reputation. The word-mark ‘NDTV’, was recognised for its strong brand identity and NDTV also possessed statutory rights to its trade mark ‘NDTV’.
NDTV owned and operated the official website www.ndtv.com which prominently features the ‘NDTV’ trade mark and is accessible globally. The images and photographs on the website were protected as ‘artistic works’ under Section 2(c) of the Copyright Act, 1957(‘Copyright Act’) giving NDTV exclusive rights under Section 14 of Copyright Act.
NDTV submitted that a search for the trade mark ‘NDTV’ online yields results exclusively linked to NDTV, demonstrating the mark’s public association and recognition. NDTV’s mark was officially declared a ‘well-known trademark’ under Section 2(1)(zg) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 in the Trade Marks Journal. It was submitted that NDTV had heavily promoted its trade mark across print, electronic, and digital media, investing significant time, effort, and financial resources and it earned substantial advertising revenue from third-party brands that leverage its large viewership.
In July 2025, the NDTV discovered that the Defendants 
/
/
/
were infringing its copyright and well-known trade mark ‘NDTV’ by hosting websites/URL’s/ social media channels, and messaging platforms (‘impugned platforms’) using NDTV’s marks without authorization, thereby misrepresenting themselves as being associated with NDTV. Thus, the present application was filed before the Court.
Case Analysis and Decision:
NDTV, is the registered proprietor of trademark ‘NDTV’ and its formatives 
, 
, 
which had been declared as a well-known trade mark by the Trade Marks Registry.
The Court observed that upon perusal of plaint, documents placed on record and arguments advanced it was of the prima facie opinion that defendants were indulging in unauthorised use/promoting deceptively similar variants of NDTV’s trade mark to try and create an impression to the general public that they were connected/associated with NDTV.
The Court further observed that the trade mark ‘NDTV’ had been used by the Defendant 1 and 2 in its entirety and the NDTV’s submission that viewers may be misled to believe that the discourse or information being shared on the impugned websites, accounts, links or channels was from NDTV was plausible.
The Court thus, observed that a prima facie case was made out in favour of NDTV for grant of ex-parte ad-interim injunction and the balance of convenience also lied in favour of NDTV. The Court further observed that if the infringing actions of the defendants were not restrained, it would cause irreparable harm to NDTV which could not be compensated in the monetary terms.
The Court thus directed that Defendant 1 and 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 them were restrained from infringing the NDTV’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 amounted to infringement of the NDTV’s trade marks/passing off and copyrights.
Further Defendants 3-15 were directed to lock and suspend the domains/URLs of the thirteen (13) impugned websites mentioned under Para 31 of the plaint and disclose complete details and file the complete KYC documents including payment details of the registrant of the impugned websites, within three weeks.
Further, Google LLC/YouTube (Defendant 16) was directed to suspend/block/remove thirty-five impugned channels mentioned under Paragraph 41 of the plaint and disclose the email addresses and other associated information for these channels, within three weeks. Telegram FZ (Defendant 17), X corp. (Defendant 18) and Meta platforms (Defendant 19) were directed to suspend/block/remove Telegram Channels, handles and impugned account/pages, mentioned under Paragraph 42, Paragraph 44 and Paragraph 46 of the plaint and disclose IP addresses and other associated information for these accounts/handles, within three 3 weeks
The Department of Telecommunications (Defendant 20) and Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (Defendant 21) were 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 NDTV in the present suit or such other websites that may subsequently be notified by them.
The Court further directed Defendant 3 to 21 to comply with the directions issued within 48 hours from receipt of the copy of the order. Additionally, the matter was listed for hearing before the Joint Registrar (Judicial) on 08-10-2025 and before the Court on 10-02-2026.
[New Delhi Television Ltd v. Ashok Kumar, CS(COMM) 869 of 2025, decided on 20-8-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Plaintiff: Kripa Pandit, Prabhu Tandon, Christopher Thomas, Advocates
For the Defendant: Yash Raj, Aishwarya Kane, Neel Mason, Udit Tewari, Nikhil Bharti, Madhav Khosla, Varun Pathak, Amee Rana, Akhil Shandilya, Charu Sharma, Advocates, Nidhi Raman, CGSC with Om Ram Advocates
