Summary
In Medecins Sans Frontieres International v. Dharma Productions Private Limited and Others, the Delhi High Court declined to grant an interim injunction restraining the use of “Doctors Without Borders” in Jigra, produced by Dharma Productions. The Court found that the mark was used in the course of trade and without due cause, but that the plaintiff had not prima facie established unfair advantage. Separately, it found that the use was likely to adversely affect the mark’s distinctive character and reputation. It therefore directed the defendants to display an appropriate acknowledgement at the beginning of the film.
Dharma’s Jigra and the Disputed References
Médecins Sans Frontières International, which operates under the names “Médecins Sans Frontières” and “Doctors Without Borders”, provides humanitarian medical assistance. It relied on its Indian trade mark registrations, international recognition, and the recognition of its mark as well-known in India in 2024.
The dispute arose from two scenes in Jigra, released on 11 October 2024. Dharma Productions was Defendant No. 1. In the film, the protagonist plans to rescue her brother from prison in the fictional country of Hanshi Dao. The escape plan involves posing as representatives of Doctors Without Borders. During the escape by sea, the protagonist invokes the organisation’s name in a distress call.
The plaintiff objected to the association of its name with impersonation, prison escape and illegal border crossing. It requested the removal of the references, but Dharma and Defendant No. 2 rejected that request. The plaintiff then instituted the suit and sought an interim injunction against the broadcasting of the disputed scenes.
Questions Before the Court
- Did the use of the plaintiff’s mark in Jigra constitute use in the course of trade?
- Had the defendants shown due cause for using the mark?
- Did the use take unfair advantage of, or cause detriment to, the mark’s distinctive character or reputation under Section 29(4)(c) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999?
- Did the circumstances justify restraining the use, or was a different form of interim relief appropriate?
Arguments Presented By the Parties
The Plaintiff
- The defendants deliberately used its registered and well-known mark without permission in a commercial film.
- The escape narrative relied on the trust and reputation associated with the organisation. According to the plaintiff, this amounted to taking unfair advantage of its goodwill.
- Linking the mark with unlawful border crossing undermined the organisation’s neutrality, humanitarian standing and credibility among existing and potential donors.
- Neither the brief duration of the references nor the fictional nature of the film excused infringement or disparagement. The plaintiff also relied on the statutory recognition of infringement through spoken words.
- Unfair advantage and reputational detriment did not have to be measured solely through financial loss or changes in donor behaviour.
Dharma Productions and Defendant No. 2
- Registration did not give the plaintiff an unqualified right to restrain every use of its mark. The statutory conditions for infringement still had to be established.
- The references occupied approximately 25 seconds of a film running for two hours and 33 minutes. The film’s commercial appeal was not based on the plaintiff’s mark.
- The fictional characters were pretending to be associated with the organisation. The film did not portray them as actual members or suggest that the organisation assisted the prison escape.
- The plaintiff had not shown that the references weakened the mark, adversely affected donor behaviour, or brought the organisation into disrepute.
- The use formed part of creative expression, and any commercial benefit did not automatically amount to unfair advantage.
The Other Defendants
- Defendant No. 3 emphasised artistic freedom and argued that a contextual reference to a real organisation did not suggest its endorsement or involvement in the fictional events.
- Defendant No. 4 argued that the use was limited and referential, did not promote the film under the plaintiff’s mark, and was unsupported by evidence of reputational harm.
- The defendants also relied on the film’s disclaimer and certification by the Central Board of Film Certification.
Court’s Analysis
The Court examined whether the use of “Doctors Without Borders” in Jigra prima facie amounted to infringement under Section 29(4)(c) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The plaintiff’s reputation in India was admitted by the defendants. The Court therefore proceeded to examine the nature of the use and its effect on the plaintiff’s mark.
Use in the Course of Trade
The Court first considered whether the reference in the film amounted to use in the course of trade. Dharma and the other defendants had used the mark in dialogues, rather than to identify goods or services offered by them. However, the Court noted that Jigra was a commercial venture, released in theatres and made available on OTT platforms. It therefore held that the use was in the course of trade.
Use Without Due Cause
On the question of due cause, the Court did not accept the defendants’ argument that the reference was incidental. As per the Court, the name had been deliberately chosen because of the plaintiff’s reputation and the perception that its personnel could cross international borders with ease. That reputation served a purpose in the escape narrative. The defendants had not shown a sufficient justification for using the mark, and the Court held that the use was without due cause.
Unfair Advantage
The Court then considered whether the defendants had taken unfair advantage of the mark. It recognised that the reference helped the story, but held that a benefit from using a mark did not, by itself, establish unfair advantage. In examining this question, the Court referred to Comic Enterprises and Bloomberg and considered the effect of the use on public perception and consumer behaviour.
The plaintiff had argued that associating its name with criminal escape could discourage donors and affect its humanitarian work. However, the Court found that it had not produced evidence of an impact on its activities or of a change in donors’ perceptions or conduct. The Court also noted that the film did not suggest that the plaintiff endorsed it or participated in the unlawful acts. The characters were shown using the organisation’s name within a fictional story. On this basis, the Court held that unfair advantage had not been established at the prima facie stage.
Detriment to Distinctive Character and Reputation
Having said that, the Court reached a different conclusion on detriment to the mark’s distinctive character and reputation. It noted that the plaintiff’s name identified its humanitarian services and enjoyed considerable trust. The defendants had selected that name to make the escape narrative credible, and the disputed scenes associated it with illegal border crossing. According to the Court, this association was deliberate, and a fictitious name could otherwise have been used. It therefore found that the manner of use was likely to adversely affect the mark’s distinctive character and reputation.
An Acknowledgement at the Beginning of the Film
The Court thus declined to restrain the use of the mark, but considered it necessary to address the likely reputational harm. To balance the interests of the parties during the pendency of the suit, it directed the defendants to display an acknowledgement at the beginning of Jigra. The acknowledgement was to state that the use of the plaintiff’s mark was not intended to cause harm or detriment to its distinctive character or reputation.
Findings of the Court
- The plaintiff’s mark had a reputation in India.
- Its use in Dharma’s Jigra constituted use in the course of trade.
- The defendants used the mark deliberately and without due cause.
- The plaintiff did not prima facie establish that the defendants obtained an unfair advantage.
- The manner of use was nevertheless likely to adversely affect the mark’s distinctive character and reputation.
- An opening acknowledgement was appropriate to address that concern during the pendency of the suit.
Court’s Order
The Court declined to grant an interim injunction restraining the defendants from using the plaintiff’s mark in Jigra. It directed them to display an acknowledgement at the beginning of the film stating that the use was not intended to cause harm or detriment to the mark’s distinctive character and reputation.
The defendants were given four weeks from the date of the judgment to comply. The interim application was disposed of with this direction.
Relevant Paragraphs
Paragraph 33 — Extract on Use in the Course of Trade
“The Impugned Film was released in theatres and is accessible on OTT platform(s). Therefore, the use of the Plaintiff’s Mark is clearly “in the course of trade” as envisaged by Section 29(4) of the Act.”
Paragraph 37 — Extract on Due Cause
“In this matter, the Defendants have not demonstrated any valid reason for utilizing the Plaintiff’s Mark in the Impugned Film, apart from claiming incidental use. This argument is insufficient, as it is evident that the Defendants deliberately employed the Plaintiff’s Mark in the Impugned Scenes to benefit from the Plaintiff’s reputation and the prestige associated with unrestricted International Border access.”
Paragraph 46 — Extract on the Evidence Concerning Donors
“In this instance, the Plaintiff has not provided any evidence of alteration in the perceptions or actions of donors resulting from the use of the Plaintiff’s Mark in the Impugned Film. The submissions of the Plaintiff are speculative in nature.”
Paragraph 48 — Extract on Endorsement and Affiliation
“In the present case, the Impugned Film has not utilised the Plaintiff’s Mark in any manner that suggests endorsement, affiliation, or involvement by the Plaintiff.”
Paragraph 49 — Finding on Unfair Advantage
“Accordingly, at this prima facie stage, the Plaintiff has not established that the Defendants derived any unfair advantage from the use of the Plaintiff’s Mark in the Impugned Film.”
Paragraph 53 — Extract on Detriment
“The Defendants selected the Plaintiff’s Mark due to its established reputation, to lend credence to the Impugned Film, else a fictitious name could also have been used. The Impugned Scenes utilise the Plaintiff’s Mark to depict the ease of crossing international borders without the need for a visa. Thus, the Plaintiff’s Mark was chosen solely on account of its repute. Consequently, the use of the Impugned Mark in the Impugned Film adversely affects the distinctive character and reputation of the Plaintiff’s Mark.”
Paragraph 54 — Conclusion and Basis for the Acknowledgement
“In view of the above analysis, the Plaintiff has not been able to demonstrate that the Defendants obtained any unfair advantage by using the Plaintiff’s Mark in the Impugned Film. Nevertheless, considering the Plaintiff’s reputation in India and the manner of using the Plaintiff’s Mark, such use is likely to adversely affect the distinctive character and reputation of the Plaintiff’s Mark. As the Plaintiff has not established a prima facie case of the Defendants exploiting the Plaintiff’s Mark for unfair advantage in the Impugned Film, it is expedient in the interest of justice and to balance the convenience between the Parties, to restrict the detriment to the distinctive character and reputation of the Plaintiff’s Mark to avoid irreparable loss to the Plaintiff during the pendency of this Suit by directing the Defendants to display an appropriate Acknowledgement at the commencement of the Impugned Film. This Acknowledgement should appropriately mention that the use of the Plaintiff’s Mark in the Impugned Film is not intended to cause any harm or detriment to its distinctive character and reputation of the Plaintiff’s Mark in any way.”
Paragraph 55 — Operative Direction
“Accordingly, the Plaintiff is not entitled to the interim injunction restraining the Defendants from using the Plaintiff’s Mark in the Impugned Film, however, the Defendants shall display the Acknowledgment at the start of the Impugned Film as directed above within a period of four weeks from the date.”
Case Citation
Medecins Sans Frontieres International v. Dharma Productions Private Limited and Others, I.A. 48554/2024 in CS(COMM) 1134/2024, Delhi High Court, Justice Tejas Karia, judgment dated 30 April 2026.
Read the judgment on Indian Kanoon — https://indiankanoon.org/doc/121349490/
Visited on 16 September 2026.
Disclaimer
This case blog is based on the author’s understanding of the judgment. Understandings and opinions of others may differ. An AI application was used to generate parts of this case blog. Views are personal.