New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Tuesday emphasized the “urgent and alarming need” to amend the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) and the Information Technology Rules to address evolving online trademark infringement. The Court, however, refused Mahindra & Mahindra Limited’s request for a post-decree dynamic injunction, noting that courts cannot extend relief beyond the statutory framework even if digital violations continue after judgment.
Court Observes Urgent Need for Legislative Action
In a judgment delivered on March 16, 2026, Justice Tushar Rao Gedela highlighted the challenges faced by litigants in the digital age. The Court stated:
“There is an urgent and alarming need for the Central Government and the Legislature to act in haste to bring about radical changes in CPC as also the IT Rules. Citizens, organizations, and entities face complex issues that require urgent intervention. Successful litigants should not hold a decree and still suffer due to non-implementation.”
Background of the Trademark Dispute
Mahindra & Mahindra Limited filed a trademark infringement suit against Diksha Sharma, proprietor of Mahindra Packers Movers, and other entities. The company alleged that the defendants unauthorisedly used the “MAHINDRA” mark and domain names such as mahindrapackers.com, creating a false association with the Mahindra Group.
The plaintiffs stated that they have used the MAHINDRA mark since 1948, hold multiple trademark registrations, and the mark is recognised as well-known by the Supreme Court. Mahindra sought liberty to implead mirror, redirect, or alphanumeric variation websites after disposal of the suit, relying on prior Delhi High Court rulings permitting dynamic injunctions to address recurring online infringement.
Court Declines Dynamic Injunction
The Court rejected the request for post-decree impleadment. It noted that after a final judgment, the court becomes functus officio and cannot modify or extend the decree beyond the powers allowed under the CPC.
The bench explained:
“Courts have adapted the law relating to suits and executions to technological advancements such as Artificial Intelligence and internet use. However, innovation in execution methods cannot extend beyond the CPC’s confines.”
The Court also stated that empowering the Joint Registrar to add new infringing websites post-decree would be improper:
“If the Court itself lacks such power, it cannot confer it on a third party. Allowing post-decree impleadment would undermine the principle of finality in litigation.”
The Court cautioned that post-decree impleadment could leave a case perpetually alive, allowing successful parties to revive suits long after judgment, eroding legal certainty.
Relief Granted
The Court decreed the suit in favor of Mahindra & Mahindra Limited and directed blocking of the infringing domain names. While granting relief, the Court reiterated that reforms to the CPC and IT framework may be necessary to effectively tackle internet misuse and emerging technological challenges in trademark enforcement.
Legal Representation
For Mahindra & Mahindra Limited: Advocates Vishal Nagpal, Suhrita Majumdar, Debjyoti Sarkar, and Bal Krishan Singh
For Defendants: Advocate Shivani Choudhary for D-5; Advocates Aditya Mathur and Anuparna Chatterjee for D-6; CGSC Satya Ranjan Swain with Advocate Kautilya Birat for Department of Telecommunications
Case: Mahindra & Mahindra Limited & Anr. v. Diksha Sharma Proprietor of Mahindra Packers Movers & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 209/2023
Also Read: Ali Khan Mahmudabad Prosecution Sanction: SC Quashes Case.
