Delhi High Court

Settlement-based territorial trademark restrictions require geo-blocking of digital platforms to prevent unauthorized access.

Sanjay Mehra vs Sharad Mehra & Ors.

Delhi High CourtJUDGMENT: March 30, 20263 MIN READSOURCE JUDGMENT
THE ORIGINAL LAWLENS SUMMARY
01

Facts

Sanjay Mehra (SM) and Sharad Mehra (SDM) were directors of Superon Schweisstechnik India Ltd.

Source reference: para. 3

Following 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. 4

On 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. 7-8

Clause 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. 8

Clause 6 prohibited both parties from "interlinking" their respective brand divisions or companies directly or indirectly, including on social media.

Source reference: para. 8

Both parties subsequently filed cross-contempt petitions alleging wilful disobedience of the TOS.

Source reference: para. 12

SM alleged SDM was using "SUPERON" on LinkedIn and physical hoardings in India without geo-blocking his website.

Source reference: paras. 13, 27

SDM alleged SM was "interlinking" the marks "SUPERON" and "STANVAC" on physical hoardings and social media.

Source reference: paras. 44, 48
02

Issues

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. 51

2. 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. 80

3. Whether the court in its contempt jurisdiction can mandate geo-blocking of websites to ensure compliance with territorial trademark restrictions.

Source reference: para. 57

4. 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. 78
03

Law 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. 91

Regarding 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. 51

It 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. 52

On 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. 89

Noorali Babul Thanewala v. K.M.M. Shetty, which allows courts to direct a contemnor to "purge the contempt".

Source reference: para. 91
04

Reasoning

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. 54-55

The court rejected SDM’s defense that disclaimers on websites were sufficient, noting they did not override the express territorial restriction.

Source reference: para. 56

It 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. 57

Regarding 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. 80-82

the 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. 78
05

Holding

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. 93

SDM 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. 93

SM 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. 94

Both parties were directed to file compliance affidavits within four weeks.

Source reference: paras. 93(vi), 94(iv)
Delhi High Court

Original Court PDF

Sanjay MehravsSharad Mehra & Ors.

Delhi High Court · March 30, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment