India’s Dynamic Deadlines: Limitations on Trademark Injunctions Post-Decree

Summary

What is the lifespan of a dynamic injunction? Does it continue after the final decree is passed? In a decision involving automotive giant Mahindra & Mahindra, the Delhi High Court tackles the ‘dynamic’ nature of trademark protection, and explores whether a court can extend an injunction to cover new infringers once a litigation has ended.

Introduction

The intersection of digital-age infringement and traditional civil procedure came up for consideration in Mahindra & Mahindra Limited & Anr. v. Diksha Sharma [CS(COMM) No. 209 of 2023, decision of the Delhi High Court dated 16.3.2026]. Cases involving websites typically invite dynamic injunctions, which are a legal remedy to automatically block “mirror” websites or new entities engaged in the same infringing activity without requiring a fresh lawsuit. This judgement critically examines the lifespan of such an injunction after the final judgment. Does the Court’s authority to add new defendants continue once a suit has been decreed, or are they restricted only for the period during litigation?

What are dynamic injunctions?

Before proceeding further, it is useful to briefly understand dynamic and dynamic+ injunctions, tools that are being increasingly used by Indian courts to tackle online piracy.

When seeking injunctions in a court, parties must ordinarily identify and name infringing entities in order to obtain reliefs. But this procedural requirement fails when dealing with online piracy or rogue websites, where the identities / domain names of infringing websites constantly evolve to evade detection. In such circumstances, dynamic injunctions come into play, where courts can issue orders automatically extending to infringing websites in their evolving form, such as mirror sites, redirects, or alphanumeric variations, without having to issue orders afresh each time.

Dynamic+ injunctions are a variant on this, which extend injunctions beyond currently-existing websites to preemptive protection against anticipated infringement that might not yet have seen the light of day. This injunction variant is particularly employed in connection with time-sensitive content, e.g., sports, films, and live news.

These injunctions are immensely practical for rights holders, as they provide protection in digital contexts, which traditional injunctions cannot. These are a direct acknowledgement that online piracy is a “hydra-headed” monster, with newer avatars constantly showing up even as you try to shut down the older ones. As cases involving rogue websites increase by the day, this tool has come in very useful for plaintiffs, and courts also appear to be understanding of the utility of such injunctions.

Background

In the present case, the Plaintiffs included Mahindra and Mahindra, a conglomerate operating in, among other things, automotives and mobility services. In 2023, the Plaintiffs sued a firm in the logistics business for using the mark “MAHINDRA”, over concerns that a false association with the Plaintiffs was being conveyed to consumers. In April 2023, an interim injunction was granted in favour of the Plaintiffs’ trademark, including against the registration of domain names comprising the trademark, e.g., mahindrapackers.com, mahindrapackersandmovers.com, mahindrapackers.in, etc.

In May 2024, the court allowed the Plaintiffs to add any new versions of the domain names (such as mirrors, redirects or other variations) to the case, by filing a formal application to include new Defendants and seek an extension of the existing injunction to operate against them.

Once the original prayers in the suit stood satisfied, the Plaintiffs sought a continuation of the dynamic injunction after final judgement or decree of the suit.

Legal issues

The issues before the Court were twofold:

1. Were the Plaintiffs at liberty to implead the alleged infringers in an application post-decree of the suit, without having explicitly prayed for this relief in the suit?
2. Did the Court have the authority to empower the Joint Registrar to pass injunctive orders, after the final judgement and decree of the suit, on applications against such newly-identified third parties?

The Plaintiffs’ case

The Plaintiffs argued that no specific prayer was needed for impleadment of mirror/redirect/alphanumeric websites or third parties post-decree of the suit, referring to the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure (“CPC”) under which a Plaintiff can state the relief either simply or in the alternative. The Plaintiffs pointed to their prayers for relief against any other domain names that contained the trademarks in question, as well as the plaint categorically stating their grievance regarding any entity that registered infringing domain names with mirror/redirect/alphanumeric variants.

As regards the Court’s powers, the Plaintiffs relied on various cases where the Delhi High Court had similarly permitted extending the final judgement through an application before the Joint Registrar.

The Court’s analysis

The Court mainly addressed the second issue, considering it fundamental to civil commercial jurisprudence.

Court as functus officio

The Court noted that the Plaintiffs’ interpretation of law would keep a suit alive and open to revival even after the passage of a long time, and there would be no finality to a suit.

The Court noted that, under the CPC, it could interfere with a final judgement or decree only in two circumstances, i.e., (i) correction of clerical or typographical errors and (ii) review of judgement. Barring these circumstances, the Court highlighted that it is functus officio, having discharged its official function in respect of the suit.

Once it is functus officio, any decision by the Court empowering a Joint Registrar to so implead a party would contradict basic civil jurisprudence. While a dynamic injunction can be granted while a suit subsists, an interim injunction order merges with the final judgement and decree.

Following administrative law principles, if the Court itself does not have the power to interfere with a judgement or decree, it cannot delegate to the Joint Registrar powers it does not possess.

Legislative Intervention

While rejecting the Plaintiffs’ claim for reliefs post-decree or final judgement, the Court acknowledged the limitations of dynamic / dynamic+ injunctions.  The Court recognised the challenges of misuse of the internet and artificial intelligence. It suggested that legislative intervention was needed, including amendments to prevailing laws and rules (e.g., CPC, the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021) to address enforcement challenges.

Conclusion

This decision reaffirms key legal principles of civil and commercial jurisprudence, i.e., that the remedy being sought should be anchored to prevailing legal standards and provisions.

By restricting the operational limits of dynamic/dynamic+ injunctions, the Court has clarified that these are tools for enforcement, and not an indefinite open-ended license to bypass filing new suits. For brand owners, this is the harsh reality of the digital era — courts may be willing to protect against evolving threats, but the reliefs are still limited and restricted by the duration of a dispute.

Ultimately, the ruling signifies the friction between static procedural laws and the fluid nature of digital infringement. There is a pressing need to modernize the legal framework to keep pace with technology, and particularly, to protect brands effectively in hyper-connected marketplaces. Strategic legislative amendments, as well as timely and meaningful policy reviews, can help the law develop at the same pace as the digital advancements it regulates.