The Delhi High Court has held that the Bharati Bhawan Publishers (plaintiff) has made out a prima facie strong case in its favour, as the infringing products clearly appear to be counterfeit and cheap imitations. The Bench determined that the balance of convenience is tilted in favour of the plaintiff and that the plaintiff may suffer irreparable loss and injury which may not be adequately compensated in monetary terms in case the defendants are not injuncted. Consequently, the Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining Defendant Nos. 1 to 17, their directors, proprietors, partners, managers, employees, principals, agents, associates, affiliates, licensees, distributors, or anyone acting on their behalf, directly or indirectly, from reproducing, printing, manufacturing, distributing, and selling counterfeit or pirated versions or infringing copies of the plaintiff’s original copyrighted works to any individual or entity within India.
Further, the Court restrained Defendant no. 18 (Flipkart), its directors, proprietors, partners, managers, employees, principals, agents, associates, affiliates, licensees, distributors, or anyone acting on its behalf, directly or indirectly, from listing on its website/platform the counterfeit or pirated versions or infringing copies of the plaintiff’s original copyrighted works offered for sale by defendant Nos. 1 to 17 or any such third party identified by the plaintiff.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Tushar Rao Gedela visually checked and compared the impugned products with those of the plaintiff and noted deceptive visual similarity to the extent that the distinction was not discernible to the Court. However, upon inspection, the Bench observed that the infringing products were of substandard and poor quality, utilizing substandard paper for printing the copyrighted material and poor-quality adhesive, which caused the sheets of paper to separate at certain places.
A remarkable difference noted by the Bench was the missing hologram on the infringing products. None of the infringing products had a hologram at all, even though a note in white colour print in small font at the bottom of the cover page on a black background mentioned a hologram sticker for the genuineness of the product. The printing quality on the cover page with the logo was also found to be very poor, despite the logo being placed at the exact same place as that of the plaintiff.
The Bench thus observed that the absence of hologram stickers points to the prima facie fact that the infringing products are counterfeit and that the defendants ostensibly have no permission or license from the plaintiff. The reproduction without authorization of the owner of the copyrighted works, the essential arrangement of the elements, the placement of the words and letters on the cover page and inside, the names of the authors, the style and font used for the course subject, and the placement of the logo and other designs indicate illegal adoption and unauthorized use of the logo and the trade dress.
The Bench further observed that offering such counterfeit products online through e-commerce platforms may tarnish the goodwill and reputation of the plaintiff and is most likely to dilute the reputation, goodwill, brand name, and popularity of the plaintiff’s registered trademark and copyrights.
Briefly, the plaintiff claims to be a leading publishing house established in 1943, specializing in educational books widely used in school and college curriculums across various Educational Boards such as CBSE, CISCE, and various State Boards. The plaintiff asserts that it is the exclusive owner of all rights in its original literary and artistic works, which include textual content, illustrations, figures, tables, drawings, charts, photographs, and unique cover designs, by virtue of agreements with authors granting perpetual publishing and distribution rights.
The plaintiff has obtained trademark registrations for the primary mark ‘BHARATI BHAWAN Publishers and Distributors’ and its logo in respect of goods and services in classes 9, 16, 38, and 41. To combat widespread infringement and counterfeiting, the plaintiff employs a unique 3D security sticker affixed to the cover page of each genuine copy, which is manufactured using specialized technology by a Swedish firm, is light grey in colour, smooth and thin in texture, and comprises three layers incorporating the plaintiff’s trademarked logo along with the textual elements “Bharati” and “Bhawan”. This sticker exhibits a three-dimensional effect, shows movement upon tilting, and at a particular angle, the logo temporarily disappears from view.
The plaintiff became aware of infringing activities on defendant no. 18’s website and platform in January 2026, where defendant nos. 1 to 17 were offering counterfeit and pirated copies of the Subject Works. The plaintiff confirmed the infringing activities by placing test purchase orders and receiving counterfeit and pirated books sold by the defendants through defendant no. 18’s platform. The plaintiff claims that defendant nos. 1 to 17 are engaged in reproducing, printing, manufacturing, exporting, distributing, and selling infringing, pirated, and counterfeit copies without authorization, affixing the plaintiff’s registered trademarks to deceive innocent customers.
Appearances:
Advocates Rahul Beruar, Nidhi Jain and Aayushi Tiwari, for the Plaintiff
NA, for the Defendant
