1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 In today's digital age, e-commerce platforms function much like vast online marketplaces, bustling with activity and accessible to anyone. While this technological shift has revolutionized consumer convenience, it has also opened the floodgates for brand misuse and intellectual property ("IP") violations. The recent click-and-cart culture has made it alarmingly easy for infringers to upload counterfeit listing, mislead consumers, and damage a brand's reputation. To cater to such issues at hand, the courts recognised the need of 'injunctions' to protect the interests of businesses and the respective IP owners. In a notable instance, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court ("Court") recently addressed the potential misuse of a well-known trade mark and expanded the scope of a 'dynamic injunction', ensuring continued protection against the persistent and adaptive misuse of intellectual property on digital platforms.
1.2 In the recent case of Reliance Industries Limited v. Pawan Kumar Gupta & Ors ("Reliance Industries Case"),1 Reliance Industries Limited ("Reliance") alleged that various commercial manufacturers, distributers, marketers were infringing its registered trade marks 'RELIANCE', 'JIO', and other formative mark by marketing and selling fast moving consumer goods (FMCG) such as wheat and lentils on e-commerce platforms like Amazon and Flipkart. Reliance further contended that these listings were posted by entities / individuals operating under fictitious names and identities, making it virtually impossible to trace, identify, and take legal action against them. Reliance argued that this amounted to infringement and was likely to deceive the public and members of the trade. The Court found that the defendant-sellers had imitated Reliance's marks in their entirety, including essential features, creating an overall impression that could easily confuse the consumers. This risk was aggravated by the defendant-sellers operating on the same market channels and targeting the same consumer base as Reliance, which is a well-known mark. Subsequently, the Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction against the defendant sellers.
2. EXPANDING THE SCOPE OF INJUNCTIVE RELIEF IN IP LAW
2.1 As innovation in technology continues, remedies to be granted also ought to be calibrated by courts. However, with the rise of digital commerce and the proliferation of infringing goods on online platforms, the static nature of traditional injunctions proved insufficient. To address this challenge, courts evolved the remedy into what is now referred to as a dynamic injunction, which is a forward-looking relief that not only restrains the known infringers but also empowers the plaintiff to seek similar relief against future infringing listings or parties, once identified, without having to initiate fresh proceedings.
2.2 However, dynamic injunctions have limits. They typically only address existing / cloned content or mirror websites of the rogue website, but not future creative works. Recognizing this shortcoming, the Court introduced the concept of 'dynamic+ injunction' in the case of Universal City Studios LLC & Ors. v. Dotmovies.baby & Ors2. Herein, the plaintiffs being major film studios, sought relief against websites that facilitated streaming and downloading of their copyrighted films. The Court acknowledged that in the digital age, new content is pirated almost immediately upon release, creating a constant threat. It accordingly granted a dynamic+ injunction extending protection to future works, ensuring that newly released films would be covered under the order as soon as they were created, without requiring separate legal action.
2.3 The decision in the Reliance Industries Case takes this approach even further. Expanding the scope of a dynamic+ injunction, the Court restrained the defendant sellers from advertising, marketing, or selling any products bearing Reliance's trade marks or artistic works. It also directed e-commerce platforms to delist the identified infringing product listings as well as any other infringing listings identified by Reliance during the course of the proceedings upon a notice by Reliance. Additionally, the Court directed the e-commerce platforms to 'disclose' to Reliance the complete contact details of the defendant sellers and any other sellers found to be dealing in the infringing products.
2.4 In other words, Court involved intermediaries (e.g., platforms and sellers) and directed them to take pre-emptive measures and disclose identities. This nature of the dynamic injunctions aid the brands in (a) proactive enforcement where the brands can act swiftly to restrain future infringers or mirror sites without initiating fresh lawsuits; (b) removing the veil of anonymity by revealing contact details of infringing parties so that appropriate enforcement actions can be taken; and (c) safeguarding the distinctiveness of well-known marks by affording them preferential protection, in recognition of their increased susceptibility to infringement and dilution.
2.5 A similar form of relief was granted by the Court in Tata Sons Private Limited ("Tata") & Anr. v. John Doe & Ors.3 Here, Tata alleged that several unidentified individuals were misusing its well-known 'TATA' trade mark by impersonating Tata employees and offering fake dealerships and distributorships in exchange for substantial sums of money. Finding a strong prima facie case in Tata's favour, the Court granted a dynamic injunction. It authorized Tata to directly approach domain name registrars upon discovering any domain names incorporating the 'TATA' mark alongside terms like "consumer", "franchise", "distributor", or "dealer" and to request the immediate locking and suspension of such domains. Permitting such immediate blocking ensures that defendants can be blocked before they even engage in any infringing or fraudulent activities, making it an effective mechanism for dealing with evolving forms of infringement. Like the relief granted in the Reliance Industries Case, the Court also directed the defendant telecom service providers to disclose all Know Your Customer (KYC) details related to the phone numbers used by the defendants and others identified and impleaded during the pendency of the suit to Tata and to the Court. The National Payment Corporation of India was also directed to block identified Unified Payments Interface Identities (UPI IDs) as well as those of other parties identified and impleaded during the proceedings.
3. CONCLUSION
3.1 For businesses, particularly those operating in the digital and consumer-facing sectors, dynamic, dynamic + and ++ injunctions help ensure their IP rights are protected. These injunctions offer quick relief against infringement, protect goodwill, and reduce the time and cost involved in repeated litigation. When courts enable the swift takedown of infringing websites and acknowledge the potential threat such violations pose to a brand's rights, it certainly creates a strong chilling effect on future infringers, reinforcing the seriousness of protecting IP in the digital space. As e-commerce and digital platforms continue to expand, it is evident that courts are increasingly acknowledging the importance of flexible and time-sensitive remedies. The approach is being shifted from a reactive enforcement model to pre-emptive injunctions to better align with the realities of evolving coming of age commerce.
Footnotes
1. Reliance Industries Limited v. Pawan Kumar Gupta & Ors [CS (COMM) 675/2025].
2. Universal City Studios LLC. and Ors. Vs. Dotmovies.baby and Ors., [CS(COMM) 514/2023].
3. Tata Sons Private Limited & Anr. v. John Doe & Ors. [CS (COMM) 685/2025].
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
