Synopsis

The respondent (SynapseIndia) filed a suit alleging trademark infringement, passing off and defamation against the appellant (Info Edge India Ltd), which operates the online review platform ‘AmbitionBox’. Negative reviews posted by anonymous users about the respondent’s company appeared on the platform. The trial court granted an ad‑interim injunction restraining the appellant from using the respondent’s trade name “SynapseIndia” on its portal for posting reviews. The appellant appealed under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act? Actually this is a commercial appeal under the CPC? The judgment is FAO (COMM) under Section 37 of the Commercial Courts Act? The order is under Order XXXIX. The appellant gave undertakings: to use the respondent’s mark only as an identifier, to remove fake reviews or reviews containing confidential information within 48 hours, to act on court orders or government notifications, and to provide user details pursuant to a court order. The High Court set aside the interim injunction, accepted the undertakings, and with consent of parties, decreed the suit itself in terms of the order. The issue of whether the appellant is an intermediary entitled to safe harbour under Section 79 of the IT Act was left open.

Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

Coram: Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora

Date of Judgment: 10th April 2026

Citation: FAO (COMM) 54/2026 (2026:DHC:3006-DB)

Core Law: Information Technology Act, 2000 – Section 79 (safe harbour for intermediaries); Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2; Trade Marks Act, 1999

2. Legal Framework

Major laws and provisions involved

• Information Technology Act, 2000 – Section 79 (exemption from liability of intermediaries), Section 72A (disclosure of information)

• Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 (temporary injunctions), Order XXIII Rule 3 (compromise of suit)

• Trade Marks Act, 1999 – infringement and passing off

• Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 – Clause 3(1)(b) (take down for certain content)

Key legal principles applied

• Interim injunction against online platforms – balance of convenience: The court considered the competing interests of trademark protection and free speech of users. The platform’s undertaking to remove fake or unlawful content and to act on court orders provided sufficient safeg

... Upgrade to a Premium Plan to view the full judgment.