Delhi High Court Grants Status Quo, Imposes Rs 20 Lakh Costs For Suppression Of Facts On Assignment Of “Instant Bollywood” Trademarks To Times Internet
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Delhi Single Bench of Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora directed maintenance of status quo on the October 24, 2025 assignment of four “Instant Bollywood” trademark registrations to Times Internet Inc. and restrained the assignor and assignee from creating any third-party interest, while entertaining the interim injunction plea. The Court also imposed costs totalling Rs 20 lakh (Rs 5 lakh per petition) on the petitioner for suppressing material facts about prior knowledge that the registrations stood solely in the assignor’s name. It found that key documents indicating such knowledge since 2022, including the June 13, 2019 agreement and exchanged legal notices—particularly a notice dated November 24, 2025—were not disclosed.
The petitions were instituted by the petitioner seeking cancellation and rectification of trademark registrations relating to the “Instant Bollywood” (device) mark under Section 57(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The registrations stood in the name of Respondent No. 1 across Classes 16, 35, 38, and 41. The petitioner asserted that he had commenced use of the brand initially as “Insta Bollywood” in 2012 and subsequently as “Instant Bollywood,” and that the device mark had been in continuous use since 2016 across digital platforms and social media.
The petitioner relied on an agreement dated 13 June 2019 executed with One Digital Entertainment Pte. Ltd. (ODE) for management and development of the brand, under which the intellectual property rights were stipulated to be jointly owned in equal proportion. The petitioner stated that the agreement was terminated in August 2025 due to alleged breaches. It was contended that Respondent No. 1, who was managing director of ODE, had applied for and obtained trademark registrations in his individual capacity without notice to the petitioner.
Respondent No. 3, Times Internet Inc., sought impleadment on the basis of an assignment dated 24 October 2025 executed by Respondent No. 1. Interim applications were filed seeking protection against further alienation of the subject trademarks.
The Court examined the agreement dated 13 June 2019 executed between the petitioner and One Digital Entertainment Pte. Ltd. and recorded that “The IPR of the Brand INB will be hereafter jointly owned by both INB and ODE in 50:50 in perpetuity and across worldwide territories.”
After perusing the agreement and the legal notice dated 30 October 2025 issued by Respondent No. 3, the Court observed that “Petitioner’s 50% Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) in the brand ‘INSTANT BOLLYWOOD’ and the device mark are duly acknowledged in the agreement dated 13.06.2019 relied upon by Respondent Nos. 1 and 3.” The Court further recorded that “This right is also acknowledged by Respondent No. 3 in its legal notice dated 30.10.2025.”
The Court noted that the petitioner was not a confirming party to the transaction documents executed between Respondent Nos. 1 and 3 and recorded that “admittedly Petitioner is not a confirming party to the Transaction Documents executed between ODE, Respondent No. 1 and Respondent No. 3 and has admittedly not received any consideration.” It was observed that “The Respondent Nos. 1 and 3 would have to explain the legal basis of exclusion of the Petitioner from the registration before the registry as well as the Transaction Documents.”
On the question of impleadment, the Court recorded that “it is apparent that the Petitioner was aware that Times Internet Inc. was asserting transfer of rights in the subject trademarks,” and accordingly held that “Times Internet Inc. is a proper and a necessary party.”
Addressing the issue of non-disclosure, the Court recorded the submission that the petitioner had pleaded knowledge of the registrations only in August 2025, while documents indicated earlier knowledge. The Court observed that “the agreement dated 13.06.2019, the legal notices exchanged with Respondent No. 3 and more specifically the legal notice dated 24.11.2025… were relevant and material documents which the Petitioner ought to have filed with the petition and explained in its pleadings.” The Court held that “The non-disclosure amounts to suppression.”
However, the Court clarified that “this Court is not inclined to dismiss the injunction application as Petitioner’s 50% right in the subject trademark is prima facie acknowledged.” In these circumstances, the Court recorded that it was appropriate to entertain the interim applications notwithstanding the suppression.
The Court directed that “the Respondents are directed to maintain status quo until the disposal of these interim applications with respect to the assignment dated 24.10.2025, made by Respondent No. 1 in favour of Respondent No. 3. Respondent Nos. 1 and 3 shall not create any third-party interest in the subject trademarks. This Court imposes costs of Rs. 5 lakhs in each of these petitions on the Petitioner for this suppression, which is to be paid to the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee [DHCLSC] within a period of two [2] weeks.”
“Petitioner is directed to file an amended memo of parties within one [1] week. Reply be filed by Respondent Nos. 1 and 3 within four [4] weeks,” and that “Rejoinder[s] thereto, if any, be filed within four [4] weeks thereafter. List before the learned Joint Registrar (J) on 12.02.2026,” and “List before the Court on 06.05.2026.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Ms. Swathi Sukumar, Senior Advocate with Mr. Nikhil Chawla, Ms. Mansha Mehta, Ms. Arshiya Chauhan, Mr. Ritik Raghuwanshi and Ms. Tejasvini Puri, Advocates
For the Respondents:
Mr. Samarjit G. Pattnaik, Advocate, Ms. Nidhi Raman, CGSC with Mr. Om Ram and Mr. Arnav Mittal, Advocates, Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Senior Advocate with Mr. Mohit Rohatgi.
Case Title: Mandeep Singh v. Shabir Momin & Ors.
Case Number: C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 275/2025 and connected matters
Bench: Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
