The Delhi High Court has granted an ex parte ad interim injunction to IDFC First Bank against operators of social media handles such as ‘Settlement Guru’, ‘AHK Tips’, ‘Expert Loan Settlement Advice’, ‘Kunal Kumar Tutorial’, ‘Loan Wala Bishu’, who were holding themselves out as agents capable of procuring loan settlements at steep discounts. The Court treated the Defendants’ use of the registered ‘IDFC FIRST’ mark and its formative variants in video titles, descriptions, tags, graphic overlays and fabricated one-time settlement letters as prima facie infringement under Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and a classic case of passing off, since such use was likely to deceive the public into believing that the Defendants’ services were authorised or connected with the Bank.
Staged and selectively edited call recordings portraying the Bank’s recovery agents as engaging in coercive, abusive or criminal conduct were held to be calculated to erode public trust in a regulated entity, and the Court recorded that the continued availability of such content was causing injury to the Bank’s goodwill and reputation that was incapable of being computed in monetary terms. Accordingly, the High Court directed the Defendants 1 to 6, including the John Doe, to take down the impugned URLs and weblinks within 36 hours of receipt of the order, failing which Google LLC (Defendant 8) was directed to lock and suspend the said URLs within 36 hours of intimation.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Jyoti Singh noted that the Plaintiff is a Scheduled Commercial Bank within the meaning of Section 2(e) of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934, and is the registered proprietor of the trademark and its formative marks incorporating the words ‘IDFC’ or ‘IDFC First’ as their essential and prominent features. The scale of operations, with 1,147 branches and over 5 crore customers as on March 31, 2026, was treated as prima facie evidence of substantial goodwill and reputation in the banking sector, with the registered marks being exclusively associated with the Plaintiff.
The Court observed that Defendants 1 to 6, none of whom have any authorisation from or appointment or engagement with the Plaintiff in any capacity, are operating social media channels and handles where they publicly hold themselves out as being in a position to procure settlements of loans sanctioned and advanced by the Plaintiff at a steep discount compared to contractual instalments and interest. To further these pursuits, they are prominently displaying the registered mark in the titles, descriptions, tags and graphic overlays of their videos and are also exhibiting purported one-time settlement letters carrying the corporate logo, stylized font and letter heads of the Plaintiff.
Also read Plausible View Is Not Enough for Interference: Delhi HC Restores NIL Arbitral Award
The Court further observed that such use of the registered marks of the Plaintiff in the course of trade, in relation to services closely allied to banking, is likely to lead members of the public to believe that the services offered by Defendants 1 to 6 are authorised or sponsored by, or otherwise connected with, the Plaintiff, and prima facie infringes the Plaintiff’s registered marks. The continued availability of the impugned content on the platforms provided by Defendants 7 and 8 was held to be bound to cause escalating and continuing injury to the goodwill and reputation of the Plaintiff, the extent whereof is incapable of being computed in monetary terms, since it entails erosion of public trust, dissuasion of prospective borrowers and a consequent impact on the asset quality of the Plaintiff.
Moving ahead, the Court observed that a Scheduled Commercial Bank which is the registered proprietor of well-known formative trademarks can maintain a commercial suit for infringement and passing off against unauthorised third parties who use those marks on social media to hold themselves out as agents capable of procuring loan settlements, and where the use is in the course of trade in relation to services closely allied to banking, such use is prima facie likely to deceive the public into believing that the third party’s services are authorised, sponsored or connected with the bank.
Accordingly, continued availability of such infringing and misleading content on intermediary platforms causes injury to the bank’s goodwill and reputation that is incapable of being computed in monetary terms, including erosion of public trust, dissuasion of prospective borrowers and a measurable impact on asset quality, thereby justifying the grant of an ex parte ad interim injunction where a prima facie case is made out, balance of convenience lies in favour of the bank, and irreparable harm is likely, added the Court.
Also read Punjab & Haryana HC Acquits 4 Men in Rape-Murder of Two Minor Sisters; Sets Aside Death Penalty
Briefly, IDFC First Bank Limited, a Scheduled Commercial Bank and the successor entity following the amalgamation of IDFC Bank with Capital First Limited and Capital First Home Finance Limited, filed a commercial suit before the Delhi High Court against a group of defendants operating under the trade name ‘Settlement Guru’ and allied social media handles. The Plaintiff is the registered proprietor of the trademark ‘IDFC FIRST’ along with formative marks such as ‘IDFC’, ‘IDFC Bank’, and ‘IDFC First Bank’, and claims to have built substantial goodwill across 1,147 branches serving more than 5 crore customers, with a net worth of approximately Rs. 47,352 crores and a balance sheet of around Rs. 3,99,780 crores.
Defendants 1 to 5 are individuals and entities running social media channels and pages under names such as ‘Settlement Guru’, ‘AHK Tips’, ‘Expert Loan Settlement Advice’, ‘Kunal Kumar Tutorial’ and ‘Loan Wala Bishu’ across platforms operated by Defendants 7 and 8. Defendant 6 has been arrayed as a John Doe, Defendants 7 and 8 are social media intermediaries and web hosting service providers, and Defendant 9 is the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, impleaded to secure implementation of any blocking directions through Internet Service Providers.
The Plaintiff alleged that Defendants 1 to 6 are engaged in an unauthorised business of offering so-called ‘loan settlement’ services to the public, including its own borrowers, by inducing defaults and misrepresenting their capacity to interfere with binding loan contracts. They allegedly upload staged and selectively edited telephonic call recordings falsely portrayed as authentic conversations between the bank’s representatives and its borrowers, display fabricated one-time settlement letters bearing the Plaintiff’s corporate logo, stylized font and letter heads, and prominently use the Plaintiff’s registered trademarks in video titles, descriptions, tags and graphic overlays.
The Defendants were further alleged to be charging unregulated ‘consultation’ or ‘retaining’ fees on the false promise of absolving borrowers from loan liabilities, with claims of securing settlements at a discount of 70% to 80% of the actual outstanding amount. The Plaintiff clarified that it had never authorised, appointed or engaged any of the Defendants in any capacity, and that legitimate settlement processes are strictly governed by RBI Rules, Regulations and Master Circulars and cannot be routed through unauthorised commercial third parties.
