Delhi High Court Grants Ex Parte Ad Interim Injunction to IDFC First Bank Against Unauthorised Loan Settlement Services and Trademark Misuse

Summary

The Delhi High Court, in IDFC First Bank Limited v. Settlement Guru & Ors., granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction restraining the Defendants from using the Plaintiff’s registered trademarks and misleading its borrowers into breaching their loan agreements. The Court also directed the removal of identified URLs and weblinks containing the impugned content, observing that the continued availability of such material was likely to cause irreparable harm to the Bank’s goodwill, reputation and business operations.

Facts of the Case

IDFC First Bank Limited (“Plaintiff”) instituted a commercial suit alleging that the Defendants were operating social media channels and online platforms under names including “Settlement Guru”, “AHK Tips”, “Expert Loan Settlement Advice”, “Kunal Kumar Tutorial” and “Loan Wala Bishu”. According to the Plaintiff, the Defendants were offering unauthorised loan settlement services and representing that they could secure substantial reductions in the outstanding loan amounts payable by the Bank’s borrowers.

The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendants were inducing borrowers to default on their contractual repayment obligations by disseminating misleading content suggesting that borrowers could avoid regular instalments and subsequently settle their loans at steep discounts. The impugned content allegedly included call recordings purportedly depicting conversations between the Bank’s recovery agents and borrowers, purported one-time settlement letters bearing the Bank’s marks and letterhead, and social media videos portraying the Bank as engaging in abusive or coercive recovery practices.

The Plaintiff further alleged that the Defendants were using its registered trademarks, including “IDFC First” and formative marks incorporating “IDFC” or “IDFC First”, in video titles, descriptions, tags, promotional material and other online content. Such use, it contended, falsely suggested an association, authorisation or endorsement by the Bank and amounted to trademark infringement and passing off. The Plaintiff also impleaded social media intermediaries and service providers, along with the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, seeking effective implementation of the reliefs claimed.

Issue before the Court

Whether the Plaintiff had established a prima facie case warranting an ex-parte ad interim injunction against the Defendants for alleged trademark infringement, passing off, misleading representations and interference with the contractual relationship between the Bank and its borrowers.

Findings of the Court

The Court observed that the Plaintiff was a Scheduled Commercial Bank with a substantial nationwide presence and that its registered trademarks were prima facie associated exclusively with the Plaintiff. The Bank’s scale of operations, including its network of 1,147 branches and service to more than five crore customers as of 31 March 2026, supported the prima facie finding that it had built substantial goodwill and reputation in the banking sector.

The Court noted that the Defendants had neither been authorised nor appointed by the Plaintiff to act as its agents, representatives or negotiators for loan settlements. Nevertheless, they were allegedly holding themselves out as capable of procuring settlements of loans advanced by the Plaintiff at substantial discounts and were displaying the Bank’s registered marks and purported settlement letters in their online content.

The Court found that the unauthorised use of the Plaintiff’s marks in the course of trade, in connection with services closely allied to banking, was likely to lead the public to believe that the Defendants’ services were authorised, sponsored by or otherwise connected with the Plaintiff. This constituted a prima facie case of trademark infringement at the interim stage.

The Court further observed that the continued availability of the impugned content could cause escalating and continuing injury to the Plaintiff’s goodwill and reputation, erode public trust and adversely affect its business operations. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the Plaintiff, the Court held that a prima facie case had been made out, the balance of convenience favoured the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff was likely to suffer irreparable harm if interim protection were denied.

Held

The Court granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction until the next date of hearing, restraining Defendants Nos. 1 to 6 and persons acting on their behalf from interfering with the Plaintiff’s business by inducing, inciting or misleading its borrowers into deliberately breaching their loan agreements, including through the unauthorised use of the Plaintiff’s registered trademarks or deceptively similar marks in videos, posts, promotional material, social media handles or other content.

The Court also directed Defendants Nos. 1 to 6, including the John Doe Defendant, to remove the impugned URLs and weblinks identified in Annexure A within 36 hours of receiving a copy of the order. In the event of non-compliance, the Plaintiff was permitted to intimate Defendant No. 8, Google LLC, which was directed to lock and suspend the identified URLs within 36 hours of receiving such intimation. A compliance affidavit was directed to be filed within six weeks.

The Plaintiff was directed to comply with Order XXXIX Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, within two weeks.

Conclusion

The order underscores the importance of protecting a bank’s trademarks and commercial reputation against unauthorised online use that may create a false impression of institutional association. By granting urgent interim relief, the Court sought to prevent the continued dissemination of allegedly misleading loan settlement content and protect the Plaintiff’s goodwill and contractual relationships pending further adjudication. The injunction is ad interim, and the allegations against the Defendants remain subject to adjudication in the suit.

Last Updated on 16 October, 2026