Facts
Sanjay Mehra (SM) and Sharad Mehra (SDM) were directors of Superon Schweisstechnik India Ltd.
Source reference: para. 3Following a family settlement, the business was divided: SM received exclusive rights to use the trademark "SUPERON" within India, while SDM received exclusive rights for its use outside India.
Source reference: para. 4On 27.04.2023, the parties executed Terms of Settlement (TOS) before a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court to resolve pending disputes.
Source reference: paras. 7-8Clause 4 of the TOS prohibited SDM from using "SUPERON" in India in any manner, subject to a narrow exception for export-related documentation under Clause 7.
Source reference: para. 8Clause 6 prohibited both parties from "interlinking" their respective brand divisions or companies directly or indirectly, including on social media.
Source reference: para. 8Both parties subsequently filed cross-contempt petitions alleging wilful disobedience of the TOS.
Source reference: para. 12SM alleged SDM was using "SUPERON" on LinkedIn and physical hoardings in India without geo-blocking his website.
Source reference: paras. 13, 27SDM alleged SM was "interlinking" the marks "SUPERON" and "STANVAC" on physical hoardings and social media.
Source reference: paras. 44, 48Issues
1. Whether the use of a trademark on social media platforms and websites accessible within a restricted territory constitutes "use" of the mark in that territory under the TOS.
Source reference: para. 512. Whether the prohibition against "interlinking" group companies and brands in the TOS is restricted to electronic media or extends to physical advertisements and hoardings.
Source reference: para. 803. Whether the court in its contempt jurisdiction can mandate geo-blocking of websites to ensure compliance with territorial trademark restrictions.
Source reference: para. 574. Whether the use of the term "SCHWEISSTECHNIK" by SDM constitutes contempt in the absence of a specific prohibitory clause in the TOS beyond the company name.
Source reference: para. 78Law Applied
The court applied the principle that wilful disobedience of an undertaking or settlement terms recorded by a court amounts to civil contempt.
Source reference: para. 91Regarding trademark "use," the court relied on Tata Sons Private Limited v. Hakunamatata Tata Founders, holding that the mere presence of a website in a geography and the ability of customers to access it constitutes "targeting" and "use".
Source reference: para. 51It further cited N.R. Dongre v. Whirlpool Corporation to establish that advertisement in media amounts to the use of a trademark regardless of the physical availability of the product.
Source reference: para. 52On contempt jurisdiction, the court applied Balwantbhai Somabhai Bhandari v. Hiralal Somabhai, affirming that courts can issue directions to nullify advantages secured through contumacious conduct.
Source reference: para. 89Noorali Babul Thanewala v. K.M.M. Shetty, which allows courts to direct a contemnor to "purge the contempt".
Source reference: para. 91Reasoning
The court reasoned that because Clause 4 of the TOS creates an absolute embargo on SDM using "SUPERON" in India (save for narrow export exceptions), any digital presence accessible in India—such as LinkedIn posts or non-geo-blocked websites—violates the TOS.
Source reference: paras. 54-55The court rejected SDM’s defense that disclaimers on websites were sufficient, noting they did not override the express territorial restriction.
Source reference: para. 56It held that geo-blocking is a "logical and inevitable corollary" of the TOS to prevent digital spillover into SM’s exclusive territory.
Source reference: para. 57Regarding SM’s conduct, the court dismissed the argument that "interlinking" prohibitions applied only to electronic media; the use of the word "OR" and the phrase "directly or indirectly" in Clause 6 indicated the restriction encompassed physical hoardings where SM displayed "SUPERON" and "STANVAC" together.
Source reference: paras. 80-82the court found no contempt regarding the term "SCHWEISSTECHNIK," as the TOS only prohibited its use in SDM’s company name, not its general use.
Source reference: para. 78Holding
The court held both parties to be in wilful disobedience of the TOS.
Rather than immediate punishment, the court issued mandatory directions to purge the contempt.
Source reference: para. 93SDM was ordered to: (i) refrain from using "SUPERON" on social media/websites unless geo-blocked for India; (ii) remove physical hoardings of "SUPERON" in India; (iii) demarcate operations into three separate divisions; and (iv) cease marketing industrial products under the "Stanvac Prime" brand.
Source reference: para. 93SM was ordered to: (i) cease interlinking "SUPERON" with "STANVAC/STARBLAZE" in physical and digital domains; (ii) remove hoardings interlinking the marks; and (iii) geo-block websites containing "SUPERON" so they are inaccessible outside India.
Source reference: para. 94Both parties were directed to file compliance affidavits within four weeks.
Source reference: paras. 93(vi), 94(iv)Original Court PDF
Sanjay MehravsSharad Mehra & Ors.
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in