The Delhi High Court has restrained the Defendants from displaying the advertisements of the well-known trademark ‘Microtek’ identified against each of them in the paperbook and directed them to remove/take down such advertisements within 24 hours and restrained them from putting such material on display in future forthwith. It accepted the Plaintiff’s grievance regarding the misleading, defamatory and factually incorrect nature of the impugned advertisements and the need for immediate preventive relief against their continued circulation and display.
Also Read Delhi HC Allows Advocate to Adjust Unpaid Professional Fees from Amount Recovered in Litigation
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna recorded the submission on behalf of Defendants No. 7 to 11 that they had nothing to do with the advertisement referred to in the plaint. It further recorded their submission that Defendant No. 2, Defendant No. 4 and Defendant No. 5 had merely received the forwarded advertisement and had put it on their display status, which would in any case disappear after 24 hours, and that Defendants No. 7 to 11 had distanced themselves from such acts, stated that Defendants No. 2, 4 and 5 had already been reprimanded, and undertook that they had neither published the misleading and factually incorrect advertisements nor would they do so in future. Upon hearing the submissions, the Bench proceeded to consider the advertisements identified in the paperbook qua Defendants No. 1 to 6.
Also Read Karnataka HC Calls for Comprehensive Homestay Policy, Lays Down Roadmap for Sector Regulation
Briefly, the Plaintiff, Microtek International Private Limited, filed the suit seeking permanent injunction against infringement of trade mark, disparagement, defamation, acts of unfair competition, rendition of accounts of profits and damages, on the ground that the Defendants had circulated false, misleading, defamatory and disparaging advertisements on social media and electronic media, including WhatsApp and Facebook, on and from May 14, 2026.
The Plaintiff pleaded that the impugned advertisements misused the earlier order passed in CS (COMM) 471/2026 and falsely claimed that 10,000 Microtek batteries were seized by order of the Court, falsely alleged that the Plaintiff’s batteries were of low/inferior quality, falsely implied that the design suit had been filed against the Plaintiff though it was not a party thereto, and falsely stated the next date of hearing. The Plaintiff also asserted that the impugned advertisement prominently reproduced its well-known trademark and sought an interim direction for immediate takedown of the misleading advertisements.
