The Delhi High Court has directed the parties to maintain status quo on the ‘Instant Bollywood’ trademarks, while imposing aggregate costs of ₹20 lakh on petitioner for suppression of material facts, even as it protected his prima facie intellectual property rights.
Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, hearing four connected petitions under Section 57(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, was examining challenges to trademark registrations for “Instant Bollywood” (device) in Classes 16, 35, 38 and 41, standing in the name of Shabir Momin.
The petitioner claimed to be the founder and co-owner of the ‘Instant Bollywood’ brand, which has been in use since 2012 across digital and social media platforms. In 2019, he entered into an agreement with One Digital Entertainment Pte. Ltd. (ODE) for management and development of the brand, under which intellectual property rights were to be jointly owned on a 50:50 basis. The agreement was terminated in August 2025 due to alleged breaches by ODE.
The Petitioner alleged that Managing Director of ODE, had surreptitiously applied for and obtained trademark registrations in his personal capacity, without notice to or consent of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the registrations, Singh approached the High Court seeking cancellation and rectification of the trademark register.
During the proceedings, Times Internet Inc. sought impleadment, asserting that the trademarks had been assigned to it by Momin under an agreement dated 24 October 2025. The Court, after examining correspondence and the assignment documents, held that Times Internet was a necessary and proper party, and accordingly impleaded it as Respondent No. 3.
On a prima facie assessment, the Court noted that the 2019 agreement itself acknowledged petitioner’s 50% intellectual property rights in the ‘Instant Bollywood’ brand. The Court also took note of a legal notice issued by Times Internet acknowledging the petitioner’s economic interest. However, it observed that the petitioner was not a confirming party to the assignment in favour of Times Internet and had received no consideration, raising serious questions over the legality of the exclusion of the petitioner from the trademark registrations and subsequent transfer.
To safeguard the admitted rights of the petitioner, the High Court directed Respondents 1 and 3 to maintain status quo with respect to the assignment dated 24 October 2025, and restrained them from creating any third-party rights in the subject trademarks pending disposal of the interim applications.
At the same time, the Court found that the petitioner had failed to disclose material documents, including correspondence showing his knowledge of the trademark registrations as early as 2022, contrary to his pleadings claiming discovery only in August 2025. Holding that such non-disclosure amounted to suppression, the Court imposed costs of ₹5 lakh in each of the four petitions, payable to the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee.
The matters have been listed before the Joint Registrar on 12 February 2026 and before the Court on 6 May 2026 for further hearing.
Appearances:
For the Petitioner: Ms. Swathi Sukumar, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Nikhil Chawla, Ms. Mansha Mehta, Ms. Arshiya Chauhan, Mr. Ritik Raghuwanshi and Ms. Tejasvini Puri, Advs.
For the Respondent: Mr. Samarjit G. Pattnaik, Mr. Zeeshan Khan, Ms. Kashish Seth, Mr. Keshav Yadav and Mr. Gaurav Vutts, Advs. for R-1
Ms. Nidhi Raman, CGSC with Mr. Om Ram and Mr. Arnav Mittal, Advs. for R-2
Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Mohit Rohatgi, Mr. Yuvnesh Sharma, Mr. Karan Trehan and Ms. Aditi Namekal, Advs. for R-3
