Safiya Malik

The High Court of Delhi Single Bench of Justice Jyoti Singh granted ad-interim relief to an education company in a suit alleging that a former employee running a rival coaching venture uploaded videos and social media posts branding the company as a “scam”, using abusive language and publishing content said to be defamatory and disparaging, while also using deceptively similar marks. The Court held that freedom of speech, though a valued constitutional right, does not permit defamatory, abusive or malicious content on social media in the name of free expression, and that the right to speak cannot override another’s right to reputation, protected as part of Article 21. It directed the primary publisher to take down specified URLs within five days, failing which the platforms must remove them, and restrained further infringing, disparaging or abusive content.

The suit was instituted by an educational services company engaged in online, offline, and digital learning platforms, alleging defamation, disparagement, and trademark infringement against a former employee and associated digital intermediaries. The plaintiff asserted ownership of multiple registered trademarks containing the formative “Wallah,” which were claimed to be distinctive, coined, and extensively used in connection with educational services.

Also Read: S.175(4) BNSS | Magistrates To Seek Superior’s Report Before Ordering Probe Where Alleged Offence Arose During Public Servant’s Duties: Supreme Court

The grievance arose from several videos and social media posts published by Defendant No.1 on platforms operated by Defendant Nos.2 to 4, wherein the plaintiff, its founder, and employees were allegedly referred to as running a “scam.” It was contended that the defendant not only published defamatory and abusive content but also adopted deceptively similar marks such as “SCAM WALLAH” and “EMOTION WALLAH” for identical services.

The plaintiff placed on record transcripts of the impugned videos, screenshots, URLs, and trademark registration certificates. An email reply sent by Defendant No.1 to a legal notice, wherein use of the word “scam” was admitted, was also relied upon. Defendant No.1 opposed the relief, claiming protection under freedom of speech and asserting truth as a defence. The plaintiff sought urgent ad-interim injunction restraining further publication and use of infringing marks.

The Court, upon examining the pleadings, transcripts, and visual material, recorded that “on perusal of the impugned videos, transcripts and other documents as also the averments in the plaint, I am of the view that Plaintiff has made out a prima facie case for grant of ad interim injunction.”

On the issue of reputational harm, the Court observed that “if the reputation of the Plaintiff is damaged, it will be an irreparable harm and injury and an irreversible loss, which cannot be undone later or compensated by money.” It further noted that remedial relief could always be granted “if Defendant No.1 succeeds in showing that the contents of the videos/posts are true and not disparaging and/or are not defamatory or abusive.”

While comparing the rival trademarks, the Court stated that “comparison of the rival trademarks and the services rendered by the Plaintiff and Defendant No.1 prima facie shows that Defendant No.1 is infringing the registered trademarks of the Plaintiff.” The impugned marks were found to be “phonetically, visually, conceptually and structurally deceptively similar,” and the services identical, making confusion inevitable.

Addressing the defence of free speech, the Court recorded that “freedom of speech… is not an absolute, unqualified, unfettered or unbridled right.” It clarified that Article 19(2) does not protect speech “that is defamatory, malicious, abusive or calculated to injure the reputation or dignity of others.” The Court further observed that “right to reputation… is a valuable right recognized as integral facet of right to life under Article 21.”

On online dissemination, the Court noted that “Use of social media to disseminate disparaging content exacerbates the mischief, given the speed, reach and permanence of digital publications and has the potential to cause immediate and irreparable harm to trademark's reputation as also the goodwill of the effected party, which one builds over years of hard work and investments.” The impugned content was found to be “prima facie defamatory, abusive and intended to denigrate Plaintiff’s goodwill as also disparage its brand.”

Also Read: Marriage Registration Not Proof Of Marital Harmony; Delhi High Court Sets Aside Family Court Refusal And Allows Section 14 Waiver For Mutual-Consent Divorce Before One Year

The Court directed that “Defendant No.1 is directed to take down/suspend/block the URLs mentioned in paragraph 32 of the plaint. In case Defendant No.1 fails to comply with the directions within a maximum period of 5 days, the URLs will be taken down by Defendants No.2, 3 and 4 respectively, as per Annexure ‘A’ enclosed with this order. Compliance affidavits will be filed by Defendants No.2 to 4 within four weeks.”

“Till the next date of hearing, Defendant No.1 and all others acting on his behalf are restrained, from publishing, circulating, or causing to publish any content using Plaintiff’s Physics Wallah trademarks and/or any other trademark deceptively similar thereto, so as to amount to infringement.” The restraint further extended to “any content which disparages or denigrates Plaintiff’s trademarks and/or its goodwill and reputation, on social media or any other platform.” Additionally, “Defendant No.1 is also restrained from using abusive language against the Plaintiff, its Founder and/or its employees.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Mr. Amit Sibal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Mohit Goel, Mr. Sidhant Goel, Ms. Aishna Jain, Ms. Urvashi Singh, Mr. Shashwat Mukherjee, Mr. Ishaan Pratap Singh and Ms. Ramaynia, Advocates

For the Respondents: Mr. Utsav Mukherjee, Advocate; Ms. Mamta Rani Jha, Ms. Shruttima Ehersa, Mr. Rohan Ahuja, Ms. Aiswarya Debardarsini and Ms. Jahanvi Agarwal, Advocates; Mr. Abhishek K. Singh and Mr. Saksham Chaturvedi, Advocates; Ms. Amee Rana, Mr. Vishesh Sharma and Ms. Nivedita Sudheer, Advocates.

Case Title: Physicswallah Limited v. Nikhil Kumar Singh & Ors.
Case Number: CS (COMM) 70/2026
Bench: Justice Jyoti Singh