IP Case Law › Trade Marks › Bajaj Finance Limited v. Manish Singh @ Settlement Guru & Or…
Relevant Acts and provisions
Provisions considered: Trade Marks Act, 1999; tort of inducing breach of contract
Brief facts
Bajaj Finance sued a social-media operator styled 'Settlement Guru' and others who used its name and registered marks in content that encouraged its borrowers to default on their loan agreements.
Issues before the Court
Whether an interim injunction should restrain the defendants from inducing borrowers to breach their loan agreements by referring to the plaintiff and its trade marks.
Court's findings
The Court found that, absent an interim injunction, the plaintiff's reputation and goodwill could be injured (para 26).
Decision
Defendant no. 1 and those acting for it restrained from directly or indirectly, unlawfully and tortiously interfering with the plaintiff's business by inducing, inciting or misleading its customers or borrowers to breach their loan agreements through references to the plaintiff, its registered trade marks or its business, with further directions (para 27).
Key legal principle / ratio
Use of a company's name and registered marks in online content designed to induce its customers to breach their contracts may be restrained at the interim stage as unlawful interference harming its goodwill.
Important paragraph references
Paras 26-27. Ex parte interim order.
Important: This case note is a research summary only. It must be verified against the full judgment by a qualified lawyer, advocate or patent/trade mark attorney before any reliance. Do not rely on it as legal advice; Ragulika IP accepts no responsibility for its accuracy or for any action taken on it.
Keywords
Ex Parte Injunction Inducing Breach of Contract Loan Settlement Content Social Media Trade Mark Misuse Unlawful Interference
Read the judgment
More Trade Marks judgments
Trade Marks
Abhimanyu Prakash & Ors. v. Ferrero S.p.A. & Ors.
Seized infringing articles bearing an imitation of a protected trade dress should be destroyed rather than released for other use.
AppealCounterfeit GoodsDestruction of Seized GoodsJar ShapeTrade MarksAcqua Minerals Limited v. Pramod Borse & Anr.
Registration of a domain name identical or deceptively similar to another's well-known trade mark, by a person having no legitimate connection with that mark and who seeks to profit from its transfer, amounts to bad faith cybersqu…
Bad Faith AdoptionCybersquattingDomain NamesPassing OffTrade MarksADS Spirits Pvt. Ltd. v. The Registrar of Trade Marks
Section 9(1)(a) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 proscribes registration only where a mark is devoid of distinctive character, that is, incapable of distinguishing the goods or services of one person from those of another; it does not…
Absolute Grounds for RefusalArbitrary MarkDistinctivenessNon-speaking Order