Dynamic Injunctions and Trademark Law in India:Has the Delhi High Court Gone Too Far, Too Fast?

Introduction

In March 2026, the Delhi High Court did something that surprised a lot of IP lawyers. In Mahindra and Mahindra Limited v. Diksha Sharma, it refused to sustain a dynamic injunction in a trademark dispute involving deceptive domain names. It went a step further and said the legislature needs to step in. That one line said a lot.[1]

Dynamic injunctions are court orders that can be extended to cover new infringing parties without filing a fresh suit each time. Courts in India have used them for a few years now, mostly in copyright disputes involving pirated content online. Applying them to trademark cases is a different matter entirely and the courts are finally acknowledging that.

This article argues that while dynamic injunctions are a practical tool, their use in trademark cases lacks any statutory foundation.[2] Indian courts have been filling a legislative gap on their own, and Mahindra shows that this cannot continue. A targeted amendment to the Trade Marks Act, 1999 is now overdue.

Part II sets out the relevant legal framework. Part III examines the key case law. Part IV makes the case for reform.

Legal Framework

The Trade Marks Act, 1999 governs trademark protection and enforcement in India. Section 135 provides the primary remedy of injunction in infringement suits. But it was written for a pre-internet world. It says nothing about how to deal with infringement that spreads across multiple URLs, domain names, or online sellers overnight.

To fill this gap, courts have relied on two provisions. First, Order I Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which allows one party to sue on behalf of others similarly situated. Second, Section 151 CPC, which gives courts inherent power to make any order necessary to prevent abuse of process or secure justice.

The problem with this approach is straightforward. Inherent powers under Section 151 are a last resort meant for situations where no other remedy exists. Using them routinely to plug a gap in a specific statute is legally uncomfortable. And it creates unpredictability. Different benches have applied these tools differently, and trademark owners cannot plan around it.

III. Key Case Law and Analysis

Dynamic Injunctions in Copyright: A Different Story

Dynamic injunctions in India trace back to copyright cases. In UTV Software Communication Ltd v. 1337x.to, the Delhi High Court granted a ‘dynamic injunction’ that could be enforced against new infringing websites without returning to court each time.[3] The rationale was practical pirate sites mirror themselves constantly, and a static order against one URL is useless within days.

That logic works well for copyright because the infringing act is usually clear a film, a song, a book is either there or it is not. There is no real ambiguity about whether a pirated copy of a movie infringes copyright.

Trademark is not like that. Whether a domain name infringes a trademark depends on a range of factors how similar the marks are, what goods or services are involved, and whether there is actual consumer confusion. These are not questions that can be resolved by an algorithm or extended automatically to new defendants.

The Mahindra Judgment

In the Mahindra case, the plaintiff sought a dynamic injunction that would cover any future domain names deceptively similar to its registered “MAHINDRA” trademark without needing to approach the court for each new offender.[4]

The single bench refused. It accepted that the problem is genuine online trademark infringement moves faster than litigation. But it held that granting open-ended injunctions against unnamed future defendants, without statutory authority, was not within its proper power. It specifically called on Parliament to provide a legal framework for such orders.

This is significant for two reasons. First, it draws a clear line between what courts can do under their inherent jurisdiction and what requires statutory backing. Second, it places the responsibility squarely on the legislature not on creative judicial interpretation.

The Practical Fallout

The judgment leaves trademark owners in a difficult position. Without dynamic injunctions, every new infringing domain or marketplace seller requires a fresh suit.[5] That is expensive and slow exactly the kind of asymmetry that bad actors exploit. A small operator can set up a dozen deceptive websites at negligible cost. The brand owner must spend significantly more to take each one down.

At the same time, the concerns about due process are real. A domain registrant or small trader whose website is blocked under an extended injunction without notice, without a hearing has a legitimate grievance.[6] The absence of procedural safeguards is not a small technical problem. It is a constitutional one.

Critical Analysis and Argument

The Mahindra judgment is correct. Courts should not be in the business of creating remedies that Parliament has not provided. The fact that a remedy would be useful does not make it lawful.

But the judgment also exposes how badly the law has fallen behind. The Trade Marks Act, 1999 is over two decades old. It predates e-commerce, social media, and the entire phenomenon of domain name abuse. Expecting it to provide tools for today’s enforcement problems is unrealistic.

The solution is a specific amendment to Section 135 of the Trade Marks Act, modelled on what courts have been doing but with proper safeguards built in. Such an amendment should allow courts to grant dynamic injunctions in trademark cases, but require:

(a) notice to affected parties where reasonably practicable;

(b) a clear time limit after which the injunction must be reviewed; and

(c) a simple mechanism for affected parties to apply for discharge.

This is not a radical proposal. Several jurisdictions have developed structured frameworks for injunctions against online infringers. The European Court of Justice has recognised that intermediary injunctions can be lawful if they are fair, proportionate, and not unnecessarily costly. India can build something similar adapted to its own judicial infrastructure.

The window is open. The Court has signalled what it needs. The legislature should act.

Conclusion

The Delhi High Court’s refusal in Mahindra and Mahindra v. Diksha Sharma to sustain a dynamic injunction in a trademark case is not a setback for brand owners. It is a clarification and a necessary one. Courts have been stretching their inherent jurisdiction to cover a gap that only Parliament can properly fill.

The argument made in this article is simple. Dynamic injunctions are a legitimate enforcement tool, but they need a statutory home. Section 135 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 should be amended to provide for them explicitly, with built-in procedural protections that address due process concerns.

Online trademark infringement is not going away. It will get faster and cheaper to carry out. The law needs to keep pace. The Court has passed the ball to Parliament. It is time Parliament picked it up.

Reference(S):

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (India), Order I Rule 8; s 151.

MakeMyTrip India Pvt Ltd v Booking.com BV & Anr, Delhi High Court (Division Bench), 2024. See coverage at spicyip.com accessed 27 April 2026.

Mahindra and Mahindra Limited v Diksha Sharma, Delhi High Court (Single Bench), 16 March 2026.

‘DHC Stunts the Growth of Dynamic Injunctions, Demands the Legislature to Step In’, SpicyIP (March 2026) https://spicyip.com/category/trade-mark accessed 27 April 2026.

‘Intellepedia’s Top Trademark Articles of 2025: A Year in Review’, BananaIP (February 2026) https://www.bananaip.com/intellepedia/intellepedias-top-trademark-articles-of-2025-a-year-in-review/ accessed 27 April 2026.

‘Recent Developments in Trademark Law and Their Impact on Creative Industries’, IP and Legal Filings (January 2026) https://www.ipandlegalfilings.com/recent-developments-in-trademark-law-and-their-impact-on-creative-industries accessed 27 April 2026.

Trade Marks Act, 1999 (India), s 135.

Trade Marks Rules, 2017 (India).

‘Trade Mark Laws and Regulations  India’, ICLG (April 2025) https://iclg.com/practice-areas/trade-marks-laws-and-regulations/india accessed 27 April 2026.

‘Trademark Law 2025: Key Changes for Indian Startups’, TMWala (June 2025) https://tmwala.com/blog-new-trademark-law-impact-indian-startups-in-2025/ accessed 27 April 2026.

UTV Software Communication Ltd v 1337x.to & Ors (2019) 78 PTC 375 (Delhi HC).

[1]Mahindra and Mahindra Limited v Diksha Sharma, Delhi High Court (Single Bench), 16 March 2026. Discussed in ‘DHC Stunts the Growth of Dynamic Injunctions’ SpicyIP (March 2026), available at spicyip.com.

[2]Trade Marks Act, 1999 (India), s 135; Trade Marks Rules, 2017 (India). See also iclg.com/practice-areas/trade-marks-laws-and-regulations/india accessed 27 April 2026.

[3]UTV Software Communication Ltd v 1337x.to & Ors (2019) 78 PTC 375 (Delhi HC).

[4]Mahindra and Mahindra Limited v Diksha Sharma (n 2). See commentary at spicyip.com/category/trade-mark accessed 27 April 2026.

[5]‘Recent Developments in Trademark Law and Their Impact on Creative Industries’, IP and Legal Filings (January 2026) ipandlegalfilings.com accessed 27 April 2026.

[6]‘Intellepedia’s Top Trademark Articles of 2025’ BananaIP (February 2026) bananaip.com accessed 27 April 2026.