Delhi High Court Curbs Online Defamation And Trademark Misuse Against PhysicsWallah By Former Employee

Delhi High Court Curbs Online Defamation And Trademark Misuse Against PhysicsWallah By Former Employee

Introduction

The Delhi High Court has granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favour of PhysicsWallah Limited, restraining a former employee and associated online platforms from publishing defamatory, disparaging and abusive content and from infringing the company’s registered trademarks. The Court held that freedom of speech cannot be used as a shield for defamation, trademark disparagement or erosion of commercial goodwill. The order was passed by Justice Jyoti Singh on January 23, 2026, in a commercial suit filed by PhysicsWallah alleging online defamation, trademark infringement and unfair competition.

Factual Background

PhysicsWallah Limited is a publicly listed unicorn ed-tech company founded by Mr. Alakh Pandey, which began as a YouTube channel in 2014 and later expanded into a large digital and offline education ecosystem across India. The company operates more than 207 YouTube channels with approximately 98.8 million subscribers, serves over 3.5 million registered students, and runs 303 Vidyapeeth Centres nationwide. PhysicsWallah is the registered proprietor of several trademarks, including “PHYSICS WALLAH”, “PW”, and various formative marks such as “JEE WALLAH”, “GATE WALLAH”, “LAW WALLAH”, “MBA WALLAH” and others.

The dispute arose when Defendant No. 1, Nikhil Kumar Singh, a former employee of PhysicsWallah, began operating a coaching institute under the name “AIR Cartel” and published multiple videos and posts on YouTube and social media platforms accusing PhysicsWallah, its founder and employees of running a “scam”. According to the Plaintiff, these publications were targeted at students and parents and were intended to discredit the Plaintiff while promoting the Defendant’s competing business.

Procedural Background

PhysicsWallah instituted a commercial suit before the Delhi High Court seeking permanent injunction, damages and other reliefs for trademark infringement, disparagement and defamation. Along with the suit, an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed seeking ex-parte ad-interim relief. The Plaintiff also sought exemption from pre-institution mediation under Section 12-A of the Commercial Courts Act, which was granted by the Court in view of the urgency involved.

Issues

1. Whether the impugned videos and social media posts are prima facie defamatory, abusive and disparaging in nature.

2. Whether the Defendant has infringed the Plaintiff’s registered trademarks by using deceptively similar marks.

3. Whether the defence of freedom of speech protects the Defendant’s conduct.

4. Whether the Plaintiff has satisfied the requirements for grant of an ad-interim injunction.

Contentions Of The Parties

The Plaintiff contended that Defendant No. 1 was running a sustained and malicious campaign branding PhysicsWallah’s educational services as a “scam”, thereby causing grave reputational harm. It was submitted that the Defendant deliberately used mutilated and deceptively similar trademarks such as “SCAM WALLAH” and “EMOTION WALLAH” to ride upon and tarnish the Plaintiff’s goodwill. The Plaintiff argued that such conduct amounted to trademark infringement, disparagement and unfair competition, and that freedom of speech does not extend to defamatory, abusive or misleading content.

On the other hand, Defendant No. 1 asserted that the impugned videos and posts represented truthful opinions and were protected under the constitutional guarantee of free speech. It was argued that similar content had been published by third parties and that the Plaintiff was selectively targeting the Defendant. The Defendant also sought time to file a detailed reply on merits.

Reasoning And Analysis

The Court observed that freedom of speech, though a cherished fundamental right, is not absolute and is subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2) of the Constitution. The right to reputation was reiterated as an integral facet of the right to life under Article 21. On examining the impugned videos, transcripts and social media posts, the Court found them to be prima facie defamatory, abusive and malicious, and not fair criticism or protected opinion.

The Court further held that the Defendant’s use of “Wallah”-formative marks, combined with pejorative expressions such as “scam”, was deceptively similar to the Plaintiff’s registered trademarks and clearly intended to disparage the brand. It noted that online publications have a wide reach and permanence, making the resultant reputational harm immediate and irreparable. Relying on earlier precedents dealing with online defamation and trademark disparagement, the Court concluded that the Plaintiff had established a strong prima facie case and that the balance of convenience lay in its favour.

Decision

The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction directing Defendant No. 1 to take down all defamatory videos, posts and URLs identified in the plaint. The Court further directed that in the event of non-compliance within five days, the concerned online platforms were to block and disable access to the impugned content. Defendant No. 1 was restrained from using the Plaintiff’s trademarks or any deceptively similar marks, from publishing any further defamatory or disparaging content, and from using abusive language against the Plaintiff, its founder or employees. Compliance affidavits were directed to be filed by the platforms, and the matter was listed for further hearing on March 27, 2026.

In this case the plaintiff was represented by Mr. Amit Sibal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Mohit Goel, Mr. Sidhant Goel, Ms. Aishna Jain, Ms. Urvashi Singh, Mr. Shashwat Mukherjee, Mr. Ishaan Pratap Singh and Ms. Ramaynia, Advocates.