Delhi High Court: While hearing an application filed under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, seeking an ex parte ad interim injunction, the Single Judge Bench of Tushar Rao Gedela, J, held that the promotional content created by Defendants 1 and 2 (infringing content) was deceptively similar to the original artistic work of the plaintiff, Mankind Pvt. Ltd. in promotion of their MANFORCE contraceptive barriers. Accordingly, the Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff in Manforce advertisement copyright infringement case.
Background
The plaintiff is the parent company that had adopted the mark MANFORCE in respect of medicinal and pharmaceutical products deriving the prefix MAN from its mark MANKIND. Under the MANFORCE trade mark, the petitioner manufactures and provides a range of flavoured condoms at affordable prices. The plaintiff averred that it has extensively promoted and advertised its range of products through sustained campaigns by engaging digital influencers and celebrities like Sunny Leone and Radhika Apte. The advertisement and promotions are carried out across social media platforms such as Instagram, Facebook and YouTube which penetrate Tier II and Tier III markets.
The plaintiff further submitted that in the year 2021, it had engaged the services of 2 digital media agencies to create social media content and the copyright of such original artistic works would completely vest with the plaintiff. In 2026, the plaintiff had come across eight social media contents uploaded by Defendants 1 and 2, copying the original artistic works of the plaintiff for promotion of identical products i.e. contraceptive barriers.
The plaintiff averred that the slavish imitation of the plaintiff’s original artistic works, especially in relation to identical goods was calculated to ride upon, dilute and misappropriate the digital brand equity built by the plaintiff and constituted copyright infringement and passing off.
Analysis, Law and Decision
The Court compared the artistic works of the plaintiff and the infringing works of Defendants 1 and 2 and noted that the infringing works are an almost complete and identical imitation of the original artistic works and the tagline of the plaintiff. The Court noted that Defendants 1 and 2 have copied not only the color scheme but also the taglines and hashtags.
The Court opined that the plaintiff had a prima facie strong case. The balance of convenience was in favour of the plaintiff and irreparable loss and injury would be cause to the plaintiff which could not be compensated in monetary terms if the ex parte ad interim injunction was not granted. Accordingly, the Court directed Defendants 1 to 3 to temporarily remove all the infringing content from social media and e-commerce websites.
[Mankind Consumer Products Pvt. Ltd. v. Anondita Medicare Ltd., CS(COMM) No.184 of 2026, decided on 25-2-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Plaintiff: Amit Sibal, Senior Advocate, Hemant Daswani, Saumya Bajpai, Pranjal Dhankar, Saksham Dhingra, Ankit Handa, Smriti Nair, Advocates