Introduction

In a landmark order passed on July 10, 2025, the Delhi High Court granted a dynamic injunction in favour of Reliance Industries Ltd., restraining anonymous infringers from using the trademarks "RELIANCE" and "JIO" across e-commerce platforms such as Amazon, Flipkart, Meesho, and Snapdeal. The injunction, passed by Justice Saurabh Banerjee, directed the immediate delisting of 21 infringing products, most of which were fast-moving consumer goods (FMCG) misrepresented as being affiliated with the Reliance group.

This order signals a pivotal shift in how Indian courts are responding to the growing menace of online brand impersonation, especially when perpetrated by anonymous sellers exploiting digital platforms.

The Plaintiff’s Perspective: Brand Equity and Consumer Safety

Reliance Industries Ltd., one of India's most recognised corporate conglomerates, argued that its trademarks RELIANCE (used since 1967) and JIO (used since 2011) enjoy well-known status under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The company submitted evidence of extensive market recognition, judicial recognition, and consumer trust associated with these marks.

Their grievance stemmed from the sale of various food items poha, pulses, and other staples on digital platforms, which bore deceptively similar logos, packaging, and branding schemes. Reliance argued that such misuse:

    • Created a likelihood of confusion among consumers;
    • Posed a risk to public health, particularly because the infringing goods targeted rural and semi-literate consumers;
    • Was perpetrated by anonymous and untraceable sellers, making conventional enforcement ineffective.

The plaintiff invoked both the well-known trademark doctrine and intermediary liability principles, seeking judicial protection not only of brand value but also consumer rights and market integrity.

Defendant’s (Platform) Position: Intermediary Liability and Due Process

While the order was passed ex parte and platforms have yet to formally respond, their expected legal arguments may include:

    • Safe harbour protection under the Information Technology Act, 2000, for being mere intermediaries not directly involved in listing or selling infringing products;
    • The need to maintain neutrality and due process, especially before being directed to take down listings or block sellers;
    • Concerns about overreach, where dynamic injunctions may inadvertently affect legitimate sellers or resellers using generic terms like “reliance”.

This raises the broader legal issue of striking a balance between effective brand protection and procedural safeguards for digital intermediaries.

Legal Framework: Indian and International Context

Under Indian Law

    • Trade Marks Act, 1999: Sections 29 and 30 prohibit the unauthorized use of identical or deceptively similar marks and protect against unfair advantage and dilution.
    • Well-known Marks Protection: Indian jurisprudence through the Supreme Court and various High Court orders recognizes that such marks merit broader protection across all classes of goods and services.
    • Interim Relief Under CPC: The court granted the injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 of the CPC, finding a prima facie case, likelihood of irreparable harm, and balance of convenience in Reliance’s favour.
    • Intermediary Rules (2021): While platforms are encouraged to implement grievance redressal and due diligence measures, the court recognized that the scale and stealth of the infringement justified direct judicial intervention.

International Norms

    • TRIPS Agreement (Article 16): Mandates effective protection of registered trademarks, including against use on unrelated goods.
    • Paris Convention (Article 6bis): Obligates member states to protect well-known marks, even when unregistered in the infringer’s jurisdiction.
    • EU and US Practices: Courts in the EU and United States have increasingly adopted dynamic injunctions in online IP enforcement, particularly in copyright and trademark cases involving recurring or anonymous infringement.

Judicial Innovation: The Dynamic Injunction

A key aspect of the Delhi High Court’s order was its dynamic nature empowering the plaintiff to notify platforms of future infringing listings, which must be promptly taken down without approaching the court again.

This reflects a growing judicial recognition of the challenges posed by:

    • Real-time online infringement;
    • Anonymous or repeat infringers;
    • Volume-based violations that render traditional litigation ineffective.

By embracing dynamic remedies, the court ensures tech-enabled brand enforcement, reducing the burden on rights holders and the judiciary alike.

My Analysis: A Progressive Yet Cautiously Optimistic Precedent

The decision marks a progressive leap in Indian IP jurisprudence, especially in adapting to digital-era challenges. It reinforces the legal sanctity of well-known marks and highlights the judiciary’s willingness to act decisively in protecting consumer trust.

However, it also raises several cautionary considerations:

    • The risk of overreach, where dynamic injunctions could inadvertently stifle legitimate trade or affect uninvolved sellers;
    • The need for clear procedural safeguards, including opportunities for platforms and sellers to contest takedown notices;
    • The importance of ensuring proportionality in enforcement targeting specific infringers rather than issuing blanket directives.

Going forward, courts may consider issuing modular orders applying dynamic mechanisms while building in checks such as notice provisions, appeal rights, and platform-level due diligence protocols.

Global and Domestic Trends: Enforcement in the E-commerce Era

This order builds on recent precedents such as:

    • The Delhi High Court’s injunction against infringers of Reliance’s Tira brand, which involved disabling telecom, UPI, and WhatsApp access;
    • Similar cases involving Beverly Hills Polo Club and PUMA, where the court acknowledged intermediary responsibilities;
    • Global jurisprudence, where courts in the UK, Germany, and the US are deploying site-blocking and search de-indexing remedies to combat online IPR violations.

India, thus, appears to be aligning with an international enforcement model that emphasises speed, specificity, and scalability.

Conclusion: Toward a Balanced Enforcement Ecosystem

The Delhi High Court’s dynamic injunction in Reliance Industries Ltd. v. Anonymous Sellers establishes a critical precedent for trademark enforcement in the digital commerce landscape. It illustrates how Indian courts are moving toward responsive and technology-integrated remedies, without compromising on legal principles.

However, the evolving nature of such remedies demands a nuanced legal framework balancing enforcement efficiency with procedural fairness. As India’s digital marketplace matures, this judgment offers a template for responsible jurisprudence that protects both brands and market integrity in the digital age.

Disclaimer: 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.

Authors:

  • Mohit Porwal, Associate Partner