Use Of Trademark On Website Accessible In India Constitutes Domestic Use, Geo-Blocking Mandatory For Territorial Restrictions: Delhi High Court

"Legal position is well settled that use of a mark on a website and/or on social media handles accessible from India, tantamounts to use of the mark in India." Delhi High Court, in a significant ruling dated March 30, 2026, held that using a territorially restricted trademark on a website or social media platform accessible within India amounts to the active use of that mark in the country.

A single-judge bench of Justice Sachin Datta observed that to comply with territorial restrictions in intellectual property settlement agreements, parties must implement strict geo-blocking to prevent access from prohibited jurisdictions, firmly rejecting the argument that mere digital disclaimers are sufficient to cure a breach.

The dispute arose between two brothers, Sanjay Mehra and Sharad Mehra, who had previously divided their parent company's business through a family settlement and subsequent Terms of Settlement (TOS) recorded before the High Court. Under the agreement, Sanjay received exclusive domestic rights to the trademark "SUPERON" in India, while Sharad received exclusive rights for exports outside India. Both parties subsequently filed cross-contempt petitions alleging that the other was wilfully disobeying the terms of the settlement by unlawfully interlinking brands and using the restricted trademark on social media and physical hoardings.

The primary question before the court was whether the display of a territorially restricted trademark on social media platforms and websites accessible in India constitutes a violation of the prohibition on domestic use. The court was also called upon to determine whether a contractual prohibition on "interlinking" distinct corporate brands applied only to electronic mediums or extended to physical factory hoardings.

The court delved into the legal implications of internet accessibility, establishing that a mark's presence on a globally accessible platform violates territorial restrictions if not technologically fenced off. The bench relied on the precedent set by the Division Bench in Tata Sons Private Limited v. Hakunamatata Tata Founders to reiterate that the mere looming presence of a website in a geography, coupled with the ability of customers to access it, is sufficient to constitute targeting and domestic use. Consequently, the court held that any online presence of the disputed mark must be actively restricted from Indian IP addresses to honour the settlement terms. "Clearly, SDM cannot be permitted to use SUPERON on websites/social media handles accessible from India, inasmuch as the same would completely dilute/nullify/defeat the stipulation in Clause 4 of the TOS."

Addressing the respondent's resistance to geo-blocking, the court dismissed the argument that virtual private networks (VPNs) or other sophisticated technologies render geo-blocking ineffective or legally risky. The bench emphasised that despite potential technological workarounds, geo-blocking remains the only viable mechanism to enforce territorial trademark boundaries on the internet. The court categorically rejected the notion that merely placing an "export only" disclaimer on a website or LinkedIn page could legally permit the usage of a strictly embargoed mark within Indian territory. "If SDM seeks to use the mark 'SUPERON' on any website/social media handles/web pages (which are accessible from India), it is incumbent upon SDM to geo-block the same so that such website/social media handles are not accessible from India."

The court then evaluated the contractual restriction preventing the parties from "interlinking" their respective brands directly or indirectly. The petitioner argued that this prohibition was only meant for digital spaces like websites and social media, and thus did not apply to the conjoint display of marks on physical factory hoardings. The court firmly rejected this artificial distinction, ruling that the broad language of the settlement agreement, which prohibited interlinking "either directly or indirectly", did not permit reading down the restriction to exclude physical advertising. "The distinction sought to be drawn by SM between 'physical interlinking' vis-a-vis 'electronic interlinking' does not flow from the terms of the TOS."

Analyzing the structural obligations under the settlement, the court observed that the respondent was required to carve out distinct business divisions to prevent brand overlap and consumer confusion. Because the restrictions varied significantly—some being strictly territorial and others based entirely on product differentiation—the court stressed that these divisions must operate with absolute independence. This legal obligation included maintaining completely separate websites, distinct visiting cards, and promotional materials without any cross-referencing or shared corporate group identity. "It is therefore essential that these divisions operate and use their respective marks independently."

Noting that both parties were in wilful disobedience of the settlement terms, the court outlined the broad scope of its powers under contempt jurisdiction to rectify breaches of judicial undertakings. Citing the Supreme Court's decisions in Balwantbhai Somabhai Bhandari v. Hiralal Somabhai and DDA v. Skipper Construction, the bench affirmed that courts can issue appropriate directions to ensure contemnors do not enjoy the fruits of their disobedience. The court opted to grant both parties an opportunity to purge their contempt by strictly adhering to a set of mandatory operational and technological directives. "Apart from punishing the contemnor, for his contumacious conduct, the majesty of law may demand that appropriate directions be issued by the court so that any advantage secured as a result of such contumacious conduct is completely nullified."

Finding both parties in willful disobedience of the settlement, the court directed Sharad Mehra to geo-block his export-oriented websites from India, remove physical hoardings displaying the restricted mark domestically, and formally demarcate his business divisions. Similarly, the court ordered Sanjay Mehra to geo-block his domestic websites from overseas access and cease all physical and digital interlinking of the disputed brands, requiring both parties to file compliance affidavits within four weeks to purge their contempt.

Date of Decision: 30 March 2026