The Delhi High Court has issued an ex parte ad- interim injunction restraining Arshu Technologies LLP and several other defendants from utilizing the copyrighted marketing materials and trademarks associated with the brand REZONI. The order, delivered by Justice A. J. Bhambhani on October 1, 2026 , marks a significant judicial intervention in a dispute involving the unauthorized replication of visual content and brand identity within the competitive smartphone accessories market.

The plaintiff, Ritvik Bansal, who operates the business entity M/s 7R , approached the court seeking protection for his intellectual property , citing substantial financial investments in the development of promotional creatives. Bansal asserted that his brand had experienced rapid growth, largely driven by these curated marketing efforts. He alleged that the defendants had engaged in systematic copying of his visual assets and trademarks to promote their own competing products, thereby creating a false association that threatened to dilute his market reputation.

In his preliminary assessment, Justice Bhambhani noted that the plaintiff had successfully demonstrated the necessary threshold for interim relief. The court observed that "the plaintiff has succeeded in making-out a prima-facie case in its favour; that the balance of convenience also lies in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants; and it would appear that irreparable loss and injury would be caused to the plaintiff if the interim injunction as prayed-for is not granted."

Preserving Brand Integrity and Creative Rights

The legal challenge focused on the unauthorized use of marketing materials, which the plaintiff argued were essential to his brand’s success. During the proceedings, counsel for the plaintiff argued that the defendants' use of these materials was not merely a case of copyright infringement but also a form of unfair trade practice . The plaintiff emphasized that "the use of the said material by the defendants for free is not only unfair, but also damaging to the plaintiff’s reputation if the defendants products are found to be deficient, by reason of the fictitious association being formed between the defendants products and the plaintiff’s products in the minds of the consumer."

The court’s injunction strictly prohibits the first fourteen defendants, including their associates, agents, and affiliated entities, from reproducing, adopting, or using the copyrighted works detailed in Schedule A of the plaint. Furthermore, the court placed a temporary ban on the use of the REZONI mark and other trademarks listed in the documentation provided by the plaintiff. This prohibition extends to the use of these protected marks as trading identities, domain names, listing titles, or search-engine metadata, aiming to curb the deceptive practices that often plague e-commerce platforms.

Navigating Digital Marketplace Responsibilities

A significant component of the lawsuit involves the role of various e-commerce platforms, named as defendants 15 through 17. The plaintiff had requested that these platforms be ordered to take down infringing content and sought a dynamic injunction to address future listings that may mirror the infringing patterns of the current materials. While the court issued notice to these platforms to address the allegations, the current order focused on establishing the immediate restrictive measures against the primary distributors of the infringing goods.

The court’s approach reflects a balanced interpretation of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 , ensuring that the plaintiff’s rights are safeguarded while maintaining procedural fairness for all involved parties. By allowing the defendants time to file their written statements and affidavits of admission or denial of documents , the court has ensured that the next phases of the trial will proceed with a clear evidentiary foundation. The court explicitly directed the plaintiff to comply with the provisions of Order XXXIX Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure within three weeks, fulfilling a mandatory requirement for such ex parte orders.

Procedural Timeline and Future Proceedings

The dispute is now scheduled for further development before the Joint Registrar, with a fixed date for the completion of pleadings and the formal marking of exhibits . On December 11, 2026 , both the plaintiff and the defendants are required to appear for the next stage of the litigation process. This meeting will be critical for determining the timeline for the final adjudication of the suit and for evaluating the strength of the evidence submitted by both sides during the discovery process .

Justice Bhambhani’s directive serves as a reminder of the evolving landscape of intellectual property rights in the digital age, where the line between legitimate competition and trademark infringement is increasingly blurred. By granting this interim injunction , the court has provided immediate relief to the plaintiff, preventing further dilution of his brand while the substantive legal arguments are fully ventilated in court. The proceedings will continue to monitor the defendants' compliance with the court’s order, with the potential for further directives should the defendants fail to adhere to the restrictions imposed on their promotional activities. The case serves as an illustrative example of the court's willingness to act swiftly when presented with clear prima facie evidence of copyright and trademark violations in the rapidly shifting digital trade sector.