Social media campaigns, influencer-led promotions and digital advertising have transformed online content into a commercially valuable form of intellectual property. Distinctive campaign themes, visual layouts, taglines, and digital creatives are often integral to a brand’s commercial identity and goodwill. At the same time, the rapid spread of content across online platforms has made unauthorised copying and imitation easier. Consequently, courts are increasingly required to address issues concerning copyright protection, passing off, and the grant of urgent interim relief in cases involving digital infringement.
The Delhi High Court’s decision in Mankind Consumer Products Pvt. Ltd. vs Anondita Medicare Ltd. & Ors. (CS(COMM) 184/2026) is a significant ruling in this evolving area of law, reaffirming strong judicial protection for original digital content and brand identity in the online marketplace. The Court first considered whether pre-institutional mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, was required. Considering the urgent need for immediate interim relief, the Court granted an exemption from the mandatory mediation requirement. This aligns with the position laid down by the Supreme Court, where urgent relief is sought, pre-institution mediation may be dispensed with.
The main issue for the Court was copyright infringement under Section 51 of the Copyright Act, 1957. The plaintiff claimed ownership of the original artistic works that form part of their social media campaigns, including distinctive visual elements, layouts, colour schemes, and taglines associated with their “MANFORCE” brand advertisements. The plaintiff further submitted that these campaigns involved significant creative and commercial investment and had achieved substantial market recognition. The Court prima facie recognised that this content constitutes protectable artistic works and that copyright may vest in the plaintiff even where such works are created by third-party agencies pursuant to contractual arrangements.
While assessing infringement, the Court applied the principle of substantial similarity. When comparing the artworks, the Court found that several key elements, including colour combinations, text placement, visual presentation, and taglines, were very similar. The Court specifically noted the identical use and placement of expressions such as “A JUICY SURPRISE”, “FOR YOUR SWEETHEART”, and “#FunWithFlavours”, along with similar graphic elements and layouts. Accordingly, the Court held that such imitation amounted to a prima facie case of infringement, as the defendants had reproduced considerable and essential features of the plaintiff’s original works.
The Court also considered the claim of passing off, noting that the defendants’ use of similar ads in relation to identical goods was likely to mislead consumers and allow the defendants to unfairly benefit from the plaintiff’s established goodwill and reputation. The imitation of distinctive advertising themes and campaign elements was seen as an attempt to ride upon the plaintiff’s brand value.
With respect to interim relief, the Court reiterated the settled principles governing the grant of an ex parte ad interim injunction under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Court found that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case, that the balance of convenience favoured the plaintiff in view of its longstanding reputation and market presence, and that irreparable injury would result in the absence of interim protection. Accordingly, the Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction restraining the defendants from reproducing, publishing or using the impugned works or any other content similar to the plaintiff’s original artistic works. The Court further ordered the defendants to remove the infringing content from all listed digital platforms, including social media and e-commerce sites, thereby ensuring effective enforcement of the plaintiff’s rights online.
This decision shows that digital advertisements and social media content are valuable intellectual property assets deserving strong legal protection. It also reflects the Court’s awareness of the realities of the digital marketplace, where infringing content can spread rapidly and cause immediate commercial and reputational harm.
The decision is also important in the broader context of digital-first brand communication and online advertising enforcement. Modern social media campaigns are no longer limited to mere promotional material but often constitute a core part of a brand’s commercial identity and consumer recall. By recognising the similarity in campaign layouts, visual presentation, taglines and thematic expression, the Court acknowledged that digital campaign identity itself may carry enforceable intellectual property value. The ruling, therefore, reflects the growing overlap between copyright protection and passing off principles in the online marketplace, particularly where imitation of social media content is used to create consumer association with an established brand.
In conclusion, the Delhi High Court’s ruling reflects the growing recognition of digital campaigns, social media aesthetics and online brand communication as commercially valuable intellectual property deserving meaningful judicial protection. The decision demonstrates the willingness of Indian courts to grant swift and effective remedies against online infringement and passing off, while also recognising the growing commercial importance of digital brand identity and social media goodwill in modern business practices.
Authors – Manisha Singh (Partner) & Kratika Patel (Associate)