Delhi High Court Protects ‘Moneycontrol’ Trademark: How IPR Laws Shield Against Misuse
Court Grants Permanent Injunction Against Fraudulent Schemes Using Financial Platform’s Name
Trademark Owners Can Challenge Misuse Through Infringement Suits and Passing-Off Actions
By Our Legal Reporter
New Delhi: January 01, 2026:
In December 2025, the Delhi High Court delivered a landmark ruling in the field of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR). The court permanently restrained several individuals from misusing the “Moneycontrol” trademark, a leading financial news and stock market platform operated by Network18 Media & Investments Ltd., to run fraudulent investment schemes on WhatsApp.
Also Read: Bombay High Court on Succession: Suspicious Circumstances in Wills Must Be Fully Examined
Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora ordered that the WhatsApp accounts and mobile numbers linked to the scam remain blocked, ensuring that unsuspecting investors are protected from fraud.
The Delhi High Court permanently restrained individuals from misusing the “Moneycontrol” trademark to run fraudulent investment schemes on WhatsApp. Under India’s Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) laws, particularly the Trademarks Act, 1999, owners can challenge misuse through infringement suits, passing-off actions, and injunctions. Similar misuse cases include Britannia’s “Little Hearts” biscuits copycat case and fake “Amul” dairy product promotions.
This case highlights the importance of IPR laws in India, especially the Trademarks Act, 1999, which empowers owners to protect their brand identity against misuse.
IPR Laws in India: Trademark Protection
The Trademarks Act, 1999 governs trademark protection in India. Key provisions include:
- Section 29: Defines trademark infringement, including unauthorized use of identical or deceptively similar marks.
- Section 135: Provides remedies such as injunctions, damages, and account of profits.
- Passing-Off Action: Protects unregistered marks by preventing misrepresentation that causes harm to goodwill.
- Jurisdiction: High Courts and District Courts can hear infringement suits.
In the Moneycontrol case, the defendants falsely projected themselves as being associated with the platform, amounting to both infringement and passing off.
How to Challenge Misuse
Trademark owners can challenge misuse through:
Also Read: Allahabad High Court: Proposed Accused Cannot Challenge FIR Orders Under Section 156(3) CrPC
- Civil Remedies:
- File an infringement suit under the Trademarks Act.
- Seek injunctions to stop misuse.
- Claim damages for financial loss.
- Criminal Remedies:
- File complaints under Sections 103–105 of the Trademarks Act for falsification of trademarks.
- Police can seize counterfeit goods.
- Digital Remedies:
- Approach courts to block fraudulent websites, social media accounts, or mobile numbers.
- Use takedown requests under IT Act provisions.
In the Moneycontrol case, the High Court ordered blocking of WhatsApp accounts, showing how digital remedies are increasingly relevant.
Similar Misuse Cases
- Britannia vs. Copycat “Little Hearts” Biscuits: Delhi High Court temporarily restrained sale of deceptively similar biscuits.
- Amul Dairy Fake Promotions: Courts have acted against unauthorized use of Amul’s brand name in fraudulent schemes.
- Nike & Adidas Counterfeits: Indian courts have regularly issued injunctions against counterfeit sportswear sellers.
These examples show that misuse of trademarks is common across industries, from food to fashion to finance.
Impact of the Moneycontrol Ruling
- Consumer Protection: Prevents investors from being misled by fraudulent schemes.
- Brand Integrity: Strengthens Moneycontrol’s reputation as a trusted financial platform.
- Legal Precedent: Reinforces that courts will act swiftly against digital misuse of trademarks.
- Awareness: Encourages companies to monitor online platforms for misuse of their brand names.
Public and Expert Reactions
Legal experts hailed the ruling as a progressive step in digital IPR enforcement. With scams increasingly shifting to social media and messaging apps, courts must adapt remedies to block accounts and protect consumers.
Industry leaders emphasized that protecting brand identity is crucial in the digital age, where misuse can spread rapidly and cause significant harm.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court’s injunction against misuse of the Moneycontrol trademark is a milestone in India’s IPR jurisprudence. It demonstrates how courts are adapting traditional trademark laws to modern digital challenges.
For businesses, the lesson is clear: monitor brand misuse, act swiftly through legal remedies, and protect consumer trust. For consumers, the ruling is reassurance that the judiciary is committed to safeguarding them from fraudulent schemes.
Also Read: Zohran Mamdani’s Letter to Umar Khalid: Can Public Solidarity Influence Indian Courts in Riot Cases?
Keywords for Faster Searches
- Delhi High Court Moneycontrol trademark case
- IPR laws India trademark misuse
- Trademarks Act 1999 infringement remedies
- Passing-off action India trademark law
- Moneycontrol WhatsApp scam injunction
- Trademark misuse financial services India
- Britannia Little Hearts trademark case
- Amul brand misuse India
- Delhi HC IPR ruling December 2025
- Intellectual property rights protection India
Also Read: US visitor visa marriages and the 90-day rule: What Indians should know before seeking a green card