The plaintiffs are engaged in providing tour and travel services under the brand name THRILLOPHILIA, which has been in continuous use since 2009. The plaintiffs hold registered trade marks for THRILLOPHILIA in Class 39 and have built significant goodwill and reputation through long standing operations, large revenues, and sustained marketing efforts.<\/p>\n
The defendants are individuals who had availed travel services from the plaintiffs. After booking an international travel package, the defendants sought cancellation and refund following visa rejection. The plaintiffs asserted that the applicable cancellation and refund policies were clearly disclosed and accepted at the time of booking. Despite partial refunds and alternate bookings being offered, Defendant No. 1 subsequently published posts on LinkedIn using the hashtag #Thrillophilia along with statements describing the plaintiffs as fraudulent, a scam, and similar derogatory expressions. Aggrieved, the plaintiffs instituted the suit seeking injunctive relief against further disparagement and defamation.<\/p>\n
1. Whether the use of the registered trade mark THRILLOPHILIA as a hashtag in social media posts containing allegations of fraud and scam amounted to prima facie defamation and disparagement.
\n2. Whether such conduct justified interim restraint on future posts using the plaintiffs\u2019 trade marks.<\/p>\n
The plaintiffs contended that THRILLOPHILIA is a registered and well known trade mark associated exclusively with their business. They argued that the defendants deliberately used the mark as a hashtag to increase visibility of posts that accused the plaintiffs of fraud and scam. According to the plaintiffs, this was not mere expression of dissatisfaction but a calculated act of defamation and disparagement intended to damage their reputation and coerce a refund contrary to agreed contractual terms.<\/p>\n
The court observed that the grievance raised by the plaintiffs arose from defamatory and disparaging statements directed against the plaintiffs as a business entity. The court did not treat the matter as a conventional trade mark infringement case involving confusion or deception as to source. Instead, the court focused on the reputational harm caused by public allegations of fraud and scam.<\/p>\n
According to the court, the use of the plaintiffs\u2019 registered trade mark as a hashtag served to directly associate the allegedly defamatory statements with the plaintiffs\u2019 brand and amplify their reach.<\/p>\n
The court specifically noted that the defendants had used the plaintiffs\u2019 mark THRILLOPHILIA as a hashtag and coupled it with words such as fraudulent and scam. The court stated that such use was prima facie defamatory and disparaging. While consumers may voice grievances, the court observed that doing so by tagging a registered trade mark with allegations of dishonesty crosses into actionable territory at the interim stage.<\/p>\n
Importantly, the court did not immediately direct removal of the existing posts. The court stated that the prayer seeking removal of the impugned posts would be considered after replies were filed. However, the court restrained the defendants from creating or uploading any future posts or comments using the plaintiffs\u2019 trade marks in a defamatory or disparaging manner on LinkedIn or any other social media platform.<\/p>\n
The court held that permitting further posts using the plaintiffs\u2019 trade marks as hashtags in a derogatory context would cause continuing and irreparable harm to the plaintiffs\u2019 reputation. According to the court, if the defendants had a legitimate grievance, they were free to pursue remedies available under law rather than resorting to public vilification.<\/p>\n
The court held that the plaintiffs had established a prima facie case of defamation and disparagement. Pending further hearing, the Court restrained the defendants from uploading or publishing any future posts or comments using the plaintiffs\u2019 trade marks, including THRILLOPHILIA, as hashtags or otherwise, in a defamatory or disparaging manner. The issue of takedown of existing posts was deferred for consideration on a later date.<\/p>\n
Thrillophilia Travel Solutions Private Limited v. Mrs Vishali Maggo & Ors., CS(COMM) 1041\/2025, decided on 26 September 2025, Delhi High Court.<\/p>\n