Delhi High Court Bars “SettlementGuru” From Misusing Bajaj Finance Trademarks, Inducing Borrowers to Default on Loans

Delhi High Court Bars “SettlementGuru” From Misusing Bajaj Finance Trademarks, Inducing Borrowers to Default on Loans

Introduction

The Delhi High Court has granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favour of Bajaj Finance Limited, restraining a platform operating under the name “SettlementGuru” from misusing Bajaj Finance’s registered trademarks and unlawfully inducing borrowers to default on their loan obligations. The Court held that the defendant’s activities prima facie amounted to trademark infringement, unlawful interference with contractual relations, and serious harm to the goodwill and reputation of the plaintiff.

The order was passed by Justice Tushar Rao Gedela on January 22, 2026, in a commercial suit instituted by Bajaj Finance Limited.

Factual Background

Bajaj Finance Limited, the plaintiff, is a public limited company incorporated under the Companies Act and a registered Non-Banking Financial Company (NBFC-D) with the Reserve Bank of India. It has been engaged in lending and acceptance of public deposits since 2007 and operates a diversified lending portfolio across retail, SME and commercial sectors throughout India. The company placed on record that it maintains a loan book of approximately ₹36.37 million and enjoys a “AAA” credit rating from CRISIL, ICRA and CARE.

The plaintiff asserted that the name “Bajaj” has acquired the status of a well-known household mark and that it holds multiple trademark registrations in Class 36 for “Bajaj Finance” and allied device marks, supported by long, continuous and extensive commercial use.

According to the plaintiff, Defendant No.1 was operating a platform under the name “SettlementGuru” through a website (www.settlementguru.in) and various social media platforms. The platform allegedly represented itself as an expert in securing settlements for borrowers at substantially reduced amounts and induced customers of Bajaj Finance to deliberately default on their loan repayments on assurances of favourable settlements.

Procedural Background

Bajaj Finance approached the Delhi High Court by way of a commercial suit seeking urgent injunctive relief. Along with the suit, the plaintiff filed applications for ex-parte ad-interim injunction, placing on record numerous URLs, social media links, videos and posts allegedly uploaded by the defendants.

The matter came up before the Single Judge for consideration of interim relief at the threshold stage.

Issues

1. Whether the defendants were unlawfully using Bajaj Finance’s registered trademarks on social media and digital platforms.

2. Whether the activities of “SettlementGuru” amounted to unlawful interference with the plaintiff’s contractual relationships with its borrowers.

3. Whether the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case for grant of ex-parte ad-interim injunction.

Contentions of the Parties

Plaintiff: The plaintiff contended that Defendant No.1 was using its registered trademarks “Bajaj Finance” and allied device marks without authorisation, including on purported settlement letters, call recordings and social media content. It was alleged that such content was false, misleading, stage-managed and per se defamatory.

Bajaj Finance further argued that the defendants were deliberately inducing borrowers to breach valid loan agreements, thereby interfering with the plaintiff’s lawful business and contractual relations. It was submitted that the use of the plaintiff’s trademarks in settlement-related content was dishonest and calculated to mislead consumers into believing that the defendants were authorised or affiliated with Bajaj Finance.

Defendants: At the stage of passing the ex-parte order, the defendants had not effectively contested the claims on merits. Defendant No.3 (X Corp.) was deleted from the array of parties as the concerned account had already been suspended.

Reasoning and Analysis

The Court examined the material placed on record, including screenshots, URLs and social media content. It observed that the platforms and links operated by Defendant No.1 were being used to display and misuse the registered trademarks of Bajaj Finance.

Justice Tushar Rao Gedela noted the plaintiff’s extensive commercial presence, long-standing use of its marks, and the substantial goodwill associated with the “Bajaj Finance” brand. The Court held that the use of the plaintiff’s trademarks in purported settlement deeds and related content prima facie appeared to be dishonest.

The Court emphasised that since the trademarks of the plaintiff were registered, the balance of convenience tilted in its favour. It further observed that denial of immediate injunctive relief would likely cause irreparable harm to the reputation and goodwill of Bajaj Finance, which could not be adequately compensated by damages at a later stage.

Decision

The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favour of Bajaj Finance Limited. The Court restrained Defendant No.1 from directly or indirectly inducing, inciting or misleading the plaintiff’s borrowers to breach their loan agreements. The defendants were also restrained from publishing per se defamatory and malicious statements against Bajaj Finance on social media platforms.

Further, the Court restrained the defendants from using the registered trademarks “Bajaj Finance” and allied device marks in any manner whatsoever. Defendants No.1 to 5 were directed to take down and remove all impugned URLs and web links forthwith. The plaint was directed to be registered as a suit, with further pleadings to be completed in accordance with law.

In this case the plaintiff was represented by Mr. Karan Luthra, Mr. Ankit Banati, Ms. Aarushi Tiku and Mr. Piyush Thanvi, Advocates.