Delhi HC Bars ‘MediaMonk.ai’, Shields Global ‘MediaMonks’ Brand From Digital Imitation

Delhi HC Bars ‘MediaMonk.ai’, Shields Global ‘MediaMonks’ Brand From Digital Imitation

Introduction

The Delhi High Court has granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favour of Mediamonks Multimedia Holding B.V., restraining an Indian entity from using deceptively similar trademarks and domain names that closely imitate the globally recognised “MediaMonks” brand. The Court found a strong prima facie case of trademark infringement, passing off, and likelihood of consumer confusion.

Factual Background

Mediamonks Multimedia Holding B.V., incorporated in the Netherlands in 2001, is a global digital services company engaged in advertising, marketing, media, technology, and software solutions, with operations across multiple countries, including India since 2019. The company has continuously and extensively used the trademark “MediaMonks” since its adoption and holds several trademark registrations in India across Classes 9, 16, 35, 38, 41 and 42.

The plaintiff also owns long-standing domain names such as www.mediamonks.com registered as early as January 2001, and has established significant goodwill through collaborations with global brands like Google, Netflix, Samsung, Nike, Amazon, and Tata.

The defendant, Systemry Global Tech (OPC) Pvt. Ltd., incorporated in 2024, was found to be operating a website under the domain mediamonk.ai, offering technology-driven marketing and business tools closely allied to the plaintiff’s services.

Procedural Background

Mediamonks instituted a commercial suit before the Delhi High Court seeking urgent interim reliefs. Alongside the main suit, several interlocutory applications were filed seeking exemptions, permission to file additional documents, waiver of pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, extension of time for court fees and affidavits, and an application for ex-parte ad-interim injunction.

Justice Tushar Rao Gedela dealt with these applications and proceeded to consider the request for interim protection.

Issues

• 1. Whether the defendant’s use of the marks “Media Monk / MediaMonk” and the domain mediamonk.ai is deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s registered “MediaMonks” trademarks.
• 2. Whether such use amounts to trademark infringement, passing off, and dilution of the plaintiff’s goodwill.
• 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to an ex-parte ad-interim injunction.

Contentions of the Parties

Plaintiff’s Contentions: The plaintiff contended that “MediaMonks” is a coined, distinctive and well-known mark with extensive global reputation and statutory protection. The defendant’s mark differs only by the deletion of the letter “s”, making it visually, phonetically and conceptually identical. Given the identical nature of services, such use was likely to mislead consumers into believing an association with the plaintiff. A cease-and-desist notice issued to the defendant had elicited no response.

Defendant’s Position: Despite service, the defendant did not appear before the Court or contest the allegations at this stage.

Reasoning and Analysis

The Court held that the plaintiff had successfully demonstrated prior adoption, continuous use, statutory registration, and substantial goodwill in the “MediaMonks” mark. It observed that the defendant’s mark and domain name were deceptively similar, with only a minor alteration that would not be discernible to an average consumer with imperfect recollection.

Justice Gedela emphasised that the similarity was sufficient to cause confusion, deception, and an erroneous belief of association. The Court also noted that the balance of convenience lay squarely in favour of the plaintiff, as continued use by the defendant would result in irreparable harm to the plaintiff’s reputation and brand distinctiveness.

Decision

The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction, restraining the defendant, its associates and agents from using the marks “Media Monk,” “MediaMonk,” the domain mediamonk.ai, or any other mark, logo or domain deceptively similar to “MediaMonks.”

The plaint was directed to be registered as a suit, summons were ordered to be issued, and timelines were fixed for filing pleadings. The Court also directed compliance with Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC.

In this case the plaintiff was represented by Mr. Mohit Goel, Mr. Sidhant Goel, Mr. Deepankar Mishra, Mr. Karan Kamra and Mr. Arpit Pundir, Advocates.