Delhi High Court on Joint Trademark Ownership in Mandeep Singh v. Shabir Momin

Delhi High Court on Joint Trademark Ownership in Mandeep Singh v. Shabir Momin. The disputes arising from joint ventures, management contracts, and subsequent unilateral appropriation of intellectual property, especially under trademarks, have particularly increased in the Indian context. The Delhi High Court’s interim order dated 11 December 2025 in Mandeep Singh v. Shabir Momin & Ors. presents a significant judicial engagement with such conflicts. The case decides upon critical issues concerning joint ownership of trademarks, fiduciary obligations in brand management agreements, rectification proceedings under the Trademarks Act, 1999, and the equitable consequences of suppression of material facts.
Mandeep Singh is the founder and public face of the popular digital entertainment brand INSTANT BOLLYWOOD. The petitioner conceptualised and built the brand from 2012 onwards, steadily growing it into a widely recognised platform for Bollywood news, celebrity content, and entertainment updates across social media. Through consistent personal involvement, content creation, and audience engagement, he generated substantial goodwill and public association between the brand and his identity. Even after entering into a joint ownership arrangement for brand management, his 50% intellectual property rights remained intact, as the brand’s reputation, recognition, and commercial value were largely shaped by his efforts and public persona. 
The order is especially important because it clearly shows how courts try to balance fairness with strict legal rules. The Court looked not only at whether the correct procedure was followed, but also at who actually had genuine rights over the trademark. The case highlights how modern trademark disputes, particularly in digital and media businesses, often involve complex relationships where ownership, management, and control are intertwined. It also shows that courts are careful to prevent misuse of legal processes while ensuring that real ownership rights are not lost due to technical mistakes. 
Background of the Case
“INSTANT BOLLYWOOD”, is a popular online media platform, that publishes Bollywood-related news, celebrity content, and entertainment updates. The brand traces its commercial origin to 2012, initially under the name “INSTA BOLLYWOOD”, later transitioning to “INSTANT BOLLYWOOD”. By 2016, the brand had developed a distinct device mark and established a significant digital footprint across social media platforms, garnering millions of followers. The petitioner, Mandeep Singh, is the founder and public face of this entertainment brand.
In June 2019, the petitioner entered into a brand management and development agreement with One Digital Entertainment Pte. Ltd. (ODE), a Singapore-based company. The agreement expressly stipulated joint ownership of intellectual property rights in the brand in a 50:50 ratio. ODE was entrusted with global management, commercialisation, and development rights. Importantly, ODE was granted extensive operational control, ownership of the brand and its associated trademarks, but was always contractually shared.
The dispute arose when the petitioner discovered, in August 2025, that Shabir Momin, Managing Director of ODE, had allegedly applied for and obtained trademark registration for “INSTANT BOLLYWOOD” (word and device marks) in multiple classes in his personal name, without the petitioner’s consent or knowledge. These registrations covered Classes 16, 35, 38, and 41 involving print media, advertising, broadcasting, and entertainment services.
In response the petitioner terminated the agreement, stating that ODE, has breached the contract on multiple occasions, over the years and approached the Delhi High Court seeking rectification and cancellation of such registrations under Section 57(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. 
Arguments Presented by the Petitioner
The petitioner argued mainly on two points namely was premised his contractual entitlement and equitable ownership. First, he made it clear that the agreement explicitly recognized joint ownership of the brand’s intellectual property, with each party holding 50% rights. There fore he agreed that any application for trademark registration should have either been made jointly or at the very least acknowledged the petitioner as a co-proprietor. The unilateral registration by Respondent No.1 in his personal capacity was, therefore, argued to be legally unsustainable. Second, the petitioner contended that Respondent No.1, as Managing Director of ODE, owed fiduciary duties arising from the agreement. The petitioner established that hidden procurement of trademark registrations, without disclosure or consent, amounted to breach of trust and unjust enrichment.
Third, the petitioner argued that the subsequent assignment of the trademarks to Times Internet Inc. was a calculated attempt to overreach the Court’s jurisdiction and tamper with the petitioner’s rectification proceedings. But the petitioner presented that as he was neither a confirming party to the transaction documents nor a recipient of any consideration, the assignment could not extinguish his interest. Finally, in seeking interim relief, the petitioner emphasized the risk of irreparable harm if third-party rights were created during the pendency of the proceedings, particularly given the potential for commercial exploitation of the brand. 
Counters Presented by the Respondents
In response to the arguments made by the petitioner, Respondent No.1 defended the registrations by placing reliance on Clause 7 of the 2019 agreement, which recognized joint ownership but also vested ODE with complete management rights. It was argued that the trademark applications were made under the agreement’s commercial objectives and were within the managerial discretion of ODE’s leadership.
Respondent No.3 (Times Internet Inc.) advanced a more aggressive defense. It stated that the petitioner was aware of the trademark registrations as early as 2022 by providing evidence for correspondence and legal notices exchanged between the parties. It argued that the petitioner failed to disclose this prior knowledge, along with the existence of transaction documents and notices, which constitutes to material suppression, hence petitioner should not be entitle to any equitable relief.
The respondents thus urged the Court to dismiss the interim injunction applications, strongly arguing that the petitioner, in order to seek relief, he must have made honest intent allegations and not have suppressed any material facts, in the first place.    
Observations Made by the Court
Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora took a close examination of the contract between the parties, along with the documentary record placed before the Court. The Court established that 2019 agreement and the legal notice issued by Times Internet Inc. expressly acknowledged that the petitioner held a 50% intellectual property interest in the INSTANT BOLLYWOOD brand. Court observed this clear admission of joint ownership was not a disputed fact and therefore formed the foundation of the Court’s reasoning that petitioner possessed enforceable proprietary rights in the subject trademarks.
The Court then examined the manner in which the trademark registrations and subsequent assignment had been carried out. It recorded that, despite the petitioner’s 50% stake, his name was completely excluded from the trademark registrations obtained by Respondent No.1 and from the later assignment in favour of Times Internet Inc. The Court observed that where ownership is shared, unilateral registration or transfer cannot be presumed to be lawful, especially in the absence of the co-owner’s consent or payment of consideration. As a result, the respondents were put to strict scrutiny and would be required to explain the legal basis for excluding the petitioner from both the registry records and the transaction documents.
The Court, then addressed the role of Times Internet Inc. Considering the documentary material, including prior correspondence and notices exchanged between the parties, the Court held that Times Internet Inc. was a proper party to the proceedings. This impleadment was essential to make a complete and effective decision of the dispute, particularly because any decision on rectification or interim protection would directly impact the validity and enforceability of the Times Internet Inc assignment.
At the same time, the Court did not overlook serious procedural lapses on the part of the petitioner. It accepted the respondents’ contention that certain material documents, especially those indicating the petitioner’s prior knowledge of the trademark registrations as early as 2022, had not been disclosed in the pleadings. This non-disclosure, in the Court’s view, amounted to suppression of material facts.
However, considering all the above circumstances and facts presented, the Court balanced procedural equity against substantive proprietary rights. Despite recording a finding of suppression, the Court declined to dismiss the interim injunction applications. It emphasized that the petitioner’s 50% ownership in the trademarks was admitted by the respondents themselves and could not be negated solely on account of procedural misconduct. To strike a balance, the Court protected the petitioner’s rights through interim relief while simultaneously penalising the suppression, thereby ensuring that justice was served without allowing either party to unfairly benefit from the situation. 
Reasoning of the Court Behind the Order
The core reasoning behind the court's decision is the recognition that intellectual property rights are proprietary in nature. With this order the court established that once joint ownership is admitted, such rights cannot be unilaterally eliminated through procedural actions. The Court was unwilling to allow the respondents to benefit from the petitioner’s procedural lapse to the extent destroys the petitioner’s substantive rights.
Simultaneously, the Court reinforced the principle of procedural honesty by imposing costs of Rs.5 lakhs in each petition on the petitioner for suppression of material facts, totally amounts to Rs.20 lakhs. This dual approach, granting protection while penalizing misconduct, ensures that equity does not become a shield for sharp practices.
The court justified its decision to pass interim relief, to maintain status quo, regarding the assignment and to restrain the creation of third-party interests on the ground that any further isolation could irreversibly harm the petitioner’s rights and complicate the rectification proceedings. 
Statutory Provisions Applicable Under the Trademarks Act, 1999
The below are the legal provisions, based on which this dispute was initiated and decided on:
despite having joint ownership.
Section 18, Trademarks Act, 1999 — Application for Registration by a Proprietor
Section 18 of the Act permits only the true proprietor of a trademark to apply for its registration. The concept of “proprietor” is not confined merely to the person who files the application but extends to the person who has a legal and proprietary interest in the mark. In the present case, the 2019 brand management agreement and subsequent correspondence clearly acknowledge that Mandeep Singh and ODE each held 50% ownership in the “INSTANT BOLLYWOOD” brand. This contractual admission legally establishes Mandeep Singh as a joint proprietor of the trademark. When Respondent No.1 nevertheless proceeded to apply for and obtain registration solely in his personal name, he violated the mandate of Section 18, because he was not the exclusive proprietor. The Court therefore treated the registrations as fundamentally defective since the statutory condition of proprietorship had not been satisfied. 
Section 24, Trademarks Act, 1999 — Jointly Owned Trademarks
Section 24 recognizes that a trademark may be jointly owned, and when such joint ownership exists, each co-proprietor holds proprietary rights in the mark subject to the rights of the other. The provision implicitly prohibits any one co-owner from dealing with the mark in a manner that destroys or diminishes the rights of the other without lawful consent. In this dispute, the Court found that joint ownership was not merely alleged but expressly admitted in contractual documents and legal notices. Despite this, the trademark was registered and later assigned without Mandeep Singh’s participation, consent, or receipt of consideration. The Court held that such unilateral conduct is legally incompatible with Section 24, because the statute treats joint proprietors as co-equal holders of the mark, none of whom may act as if the property belongs to them alone. 
Section 57(2), Trademarks Act, 1999 — Rectification and Cancellation of the Register
Section 57(2) empowers the High Court to cancel or vary a trademark registration when any entry has been wrongly made or wrongly remains on the register. The Court applied this provision as the central statutory foundation of the petitioner’s case. Since the registration stood solely in the name of Respondent No.1 despite admitted joint ownership, the entry on the register misrepresented the true proprietary position. Such an entry is precisely the type of defect Section 57(2) is designed to cure. The petitioner’s rectification proceedings therefore rested on the principle that a register which excludes a lawful co-owner is not merely procedurally irregular but substantively incorrect, warranting judicial intervention. 
Section 45, Trademarks Act, 1999 — Registration of Assignments and Transmissions
Section 45 governs the registration of assignments of trademarks and requires that assignments reflect lawful transfer of proprietary interest. The assignment of the “INSTANT BOLLYWOOD” trademarks to Times Internet Inc. was executed without the petitioner’s consent and without recognizing his 50% ownership. Because Respondent No.1 could not legally assign more rights than he himself possessed, the Court treated the assignment as legally questionable. The failure to recognize the petitioner’s proprietary interest meant that the assignment recorded under Section 45 did not represent a valid transmission of full title and was therefore susceptible to being set aside once the rectification proceedings are finally decided. 
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court’s order in Mandeep Singh v. Shabir Momin & Ors. is an important reminder of how courts deal with modern disputes involving shared ownership of intellectual property. The Court made it clear that when a trademark is jointly owned, one party cannot quietly register it in their own name or transfer it to someone else without the knowledge and consent of the other owner. Even if one party is given managerial control under an agreement, ownership rights cannot be taken away through backdoor methods. 
At the same time, the Court strongly criticised the petitioner for not being fully honest and transparent with the Court. It clearly showed that hiding or suppressing important facts will not be taken lightly and will result in serious consequences, such as heavy costs. However, the Court also recognised that procedural mistakes should not completely destroy genuine ownership rights. By ordering the parties to maintain the existing situation until the case is finally decided, the Court protected the petitioner’s trademark rights while the dispute is still pending. 
The decision reflects a fair and practical approach. It protects the persons actual claim on his intellectual property rights, discourages dishonest conduct, and upholds the integrity of the judicial process. As digital businesses and brand partnerships become more common, this order is likely to guide future courts in resolving conflicts where contracts, fairness, and trademark law intersect.
Frequently Asked Questions
Q1. What was the main legal dispute in Mandeep Singh v. Shabir Momin & Ors.? 
Ans. The dispute centred on whether trademarks jointly owned under a brand management agreement could be unilaterally registered and assigned by one party without the consent of the other joint owner.
Q2. Why did the Court treat the issue of joint ownership as central to the case? 
Ans. Because the 2019 agreement and subsequent legal notices clearly acknowledged a 50:50 ownership, making unilateral trademark registrations legally questionable from the outset.
Q3. Can managerial control over a brand override trademark ownership right? 
Ans. No. The Court clarified that managerial or operational control does not cancel or dilute ownership rights unless expressly and lawfully transferred with consent and consideration.
Q4. Why was Times Internet Inc. impleaded as a party even though the dispute began between the original contracting parties? 
Ans. Because any decision on rectification or interim relief would directly affect the validity of the trademark assignment claimed by Times Internet Inc., making it a necessary party for complete adjudication.
Q5. How did the Court view the petitioner’s failure to disclose prior knowledge of the trademark registrations? 
Ans. The Court held that non-disclosure of material facts amounted to suppression and warranted judicial censure, including the imposition of heavy costs.
Q6. If the petitioner suppressed facts, why did the Court still grant interim protection? 
Ans. Because suppression of facts, though serious, does not automatically extinguish admitted substantive rights especially when ownership is contractually acknowledged by the opposing parties themselves.
Q7. Does this judgment suggest that courts will always overlook procedural misconduct in IP cases? 
Ans. No. The Court penalised the misconduct through costs, showing that while rights may be protected, dishonesty will still attract serious consequences.
Q8. What role did Section 57(2) of the Trade Marks Act play in the proceedings? 
Ans. It provided the legal basis for seeking cancellation or rectification of trademark registrations that were allegedly wrongly granted or continued in one party’s name.
Q9. What does this case reveal about trademark disputes in digital and influencer-driven businesses? 
Ans. It highlights how personal goodwill, public association, and digital presence complicate ownership disputes, especially when contracts separate management from ownership.
Q10. What broader legal principle can be drawn from this decision? 
Ans. That courts will strive to balance equity and legality protecting genuine intellectual property rights while ensuring that the judicial process is not abused through suppression or strategic conduct.

The disputes arising from joint ventures, management contracts, and subsequent unilateral appropriation of intellectual property, especially under trademarks, have particularly increased in the Indian context. The Delhi High Court’s interim order dated 11 December 2025 in Mandeep Singh v. Shabir Momin & Ors. presents a significant judicial engagement with such conflicts. The case decides upon critical issues concerning joint ownership of trademarks, fiduciary obligations in brand management agreements, rectification proceedings under the Trademarks Act, 1999, and the equitable consequences of suppression of material facts.

Mandeep Singh is the founder and public face of the popular digital entertainment brand INSTANT BOLLYWOOD. The petitioner conceptualised and built the brand from 2012 onwards, steadily growing it into a widely recognised platform for Bollywood news, celebrity content, and entertainment updates across social media. Through consistent personal involvement, content creation, and audience engagement, he generated substantial goodwill and public association between the brand and his identity. Even after entering into a joint ownership arrangement for brand management, his 50% intellectual property rights remained intact, as the brand’s reputation, recognition, and commercial value were largely shaped by his efforts and public persona.

The order is especially important because it clearly shows how courts try to balance fairness with strict legal rules. The Court looked not only at whether the correct procedure was followed, but also at who actually had genuine rights over the trademark. The case highlights how modern trademark disputes, particularly in digital and media businesses, often involve complex relationships where ownership, management, and control are intertwined. It also shows that courts are careful to prevent misuse of legal processes while ensuring that real ownership rights are not lost due to technical mistakes.

Background of the Case

“INSTANT BOLLYWOOD”, is a popular online media platform, that publishes Bollywood-related news, celebrity content, and entertainment updates. The brand traces its commercial origin to 2012, initially under the name “INSTA BOLLYWOOD”, later transitioning to “INSTANT BOLLYWOOD”. By 2016, the brand had developed a distinct device mark and established a significant digital footprint across social media platforms, garnering millions of followers. The petitioner, Mandeep Singh, is the founder and public face of this entertainment brand.

In June 2019, the petitioner entered into a brand management and development agreement with One Digital Entertainment Pte. Ltd. (ODE), a Singapore-based company. The agreement expressly stipulated joint ownership of intellectual property rights in the brand in a 50:50 ratio. ODE was entrusted with global management, commercialisation, and development rights. Importantly, ODE was granted extensive operational control, ownership of the brand and its associated trademarks, but was always contractually shared.

The dispute arose when the petitioner discovered, in August 2025, that Shabir Momin, Managing Director of ODE, had allegedly applied for and obtained trademark registration for “INSTANT BOLLYWOOD” (word and device marks) in multiple classes in his personal name, without the petitioner’s consent or knowledge. These registrations covered Classes 16, 35, 38, and 41 involving print media, advertising, broadcasting, and entertainment services.

In response the petitioner terminated the agreement, stating that ODE, has breached the contract on multiple occasions, over the years and approached the Delhi High Court seeking rectification and cancellation of such registrations under Section 57(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

Arguments Presented by the Petitioner

The petitioner argued mainly on two points namely was premised his contractual entitlement and equitable ownership. First, he made it clear that the agreement explicitly recognized joint ownership of the brand’s intellectual property, with each party holding 50% rights. There fore he agreed that any application for trademark registration should have either been made jointly or at the very least acknowledged the petitioner as a co-proprietor. The unilateral registration by Respondent No.1 in his personal capacity was, therefore, argued to be legally unsustainable. Second, the petitioner contended that Respondent No.1, as Managing Director of ODE, owed fiduciary duties arising from the agreement. The petitioner established that hidden procurement of trademark registrations, without disclosure or consent, amounted to breach of trust and unjust enrichment.

Third, the petitioner argued that the subsequent assignment of the trademarks to Times Internet Inc. was a calculated attempt to overreach the Court’s jurisdiction and tamper with the petitioner’s rectification proceedings. But the petitioner presented that as he was neither a confirming party to the transaction documents nor a recipient of any consideration, the assignment could not extinguish his interest. Finally, in seeking interim relief, the petitioner emphasized the risk of irreparable harm if third-party rights were created during the pendency of the proceedings, particularly given the potential for commercial exploitation of the brand.

Counters Presented by the Respondents

In response to the arguments made by the petitioner, Respondent No.1 defended the registrations by placing reliance on Clause 7 of the 2019 agreement, which recognized joint ownership but also vested ODE with complete management rights. It was argued that the trademark applications were made under the agreement’s commercial objectives and were within the managerial discretion of ODE’s leadership.

Respondent No.3 (Times Internet Inc.) advanced a more aggressive defense. It stated that the petitioner was aware of the trademark registrations as early as 2022 by providing evidence for correspondence and legal notices exchanged between the parties. It argued that the petitioner failed to disclose this prior knowledge, along with the existence of transaction documents and notices, which constitutes to material suppression, hence petitioner should not be entitle to any equitable relief.

The respondents thus urged the Court to dismiss the interim injunction applications, strongly arguing that the petitioner, in order to seek relief, he must have made honest intent allegations and not have suppressed any material facts, in the first place.

Observations Made by the Court

Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora took a close examination of the contract between the parties, along with the documentary record placed before the Court. The Court established that 2019 agreement and the legal notice issued by Times Internet Inc. expressly acknowledged that the petitioner held a 50% intellectual property interest in the INSTANT BOLLYWOOD brand. Court observed this clear admission of joint ownership was not a disputed fact and therefore formed the foundation of the Court’s reasoning that petitioner possessed enforceable proprietary rights in the subject trademarks.

The Court then examined the manner in which the trademark registrations and subsequent assignment had been carried out. It recorded that, despite the petitioner’s 50% stake, his name was completely excluded from the trademark registrations obtained by Respondent No.1 and from the later assignment in favour of Times Internet Inc. The Court observed that where ownership is shared, unilateral registration or transfer cannot be presumed to be lawful, especially in the absence of the co-owner’s consent or payment of consideration. As a result, the respondents were put to strict scrutiny and would be required to explain the legal basis for excluding the petitioner from both the registry records and the transaction documents.

The Court, then addressed the role of Times Internet Inc. Considering the documentary material, including prior correspondence and notices exchanged between the parties, the Court held that Times Internet Inc. was a proper party to the proceedings. This impleadment was essential to make a complete and effective decision of the dispute, particularly because any decision on rectification or interim protection would directly impact the validity and enforceability of the Times Internet Inc assignment.

At the same time, the Court did not overlook serious procedural lapses on the part of the petitioner. It accepted the respondents’ contention that certain material documents, especially those indicating the petitioner’s prior knowledge of the trademark registrations as early as 2022, had not been disclosed in the pleadings. This non-disclosure, in the Court’s view, amounted to suppression of material facts.

However, considering all the above circumstances and facts presented, the Court balanced procedural equity against substantive proprietary rights. Despite recording a finding of suppression, the Court declined to dismiss the interim injunction applications. It emphasized that the petitioner’s 50% ownership in the trademarks was admitted by the respondents themselves and could not be negated solely on account of procedural misconduct. To strike a balance, the Court protected the petitioner’s rights through interim relief while simultaneously penalising the suppression, thereby ensuring that justice was served without allowing either party to unfairly benefit from the situation.

Reasoning of the Court Behind the Order

The core reasoning behind the court's decision is the recognition that intellectual property rights are proprietary in nature. With this order the court established that once joint ownership is admitted, such rights cannot be unilaterally eliminated through procedural actions. The Court was unwilling to allow the respondents to benefit from the petitioner’s procedural lapse to the extent destroys the petitioner’s substantive rights.

Simultaneously, the Court reinforced the principle of procedural honesty by imposing costs of Rs.5 lakhs in each petition on the petitioner for suppression of material facts, totally amounts to Rs.20 lakhs. This dual approach, granting protection while penalizing misconduct, ensures that equity does not become a shield for sharp practices.

The court justified its decision to pass interim relief, to maintain status quo, regarding the assignment and to restrain the creation of third-party interests on the ground that any further isolation could irreversibly harm the petitioner’s rights and complicate the rectification proceedings.

Statutory Provisions Applicable Under the Trademarks Act, 1999

The below are the legal provisions, based on which this dispute was initiated and decided on:

despite having joint ownership.

Section 18, Trademarks Act, 1999 — Application for Registration by a Proprietor

Section 18 of the Act permits only the true proprietor of a trademark to apply for its registration. The concept of “proprietor” is not confined merely to the person who files the application but extends to the person who has a legal and proprietary interest in the mark. In the present case, the 2019 brand management agreement and subsequent correspondence clearly acknowledge that Mandeep Singh and ODE each held 50% ownership in the “INSTANT BOLLYWOOD” brand. This contractual admission legally establishes Mandeep Singh as a joint proprietor of the trademark. When Respondent No.1 nevertheless proceeded to apply for and obtain registration solely in his personal name, he violated the mandate of Section 18, because he was not the exclusive proprietor. The Court therefore treated the registrations as fundamentally defective since the statutory condition of proprietorship had not been satisfied.

Section 24, Trademarks Act, 1999 — Jointly Owned Trademarks

Section 24 recognizes that a trademark may be jointly owned, and when such joint ownership exists, each co-proprietor holds proprietary rights in the mark subject to the rights of the other. The provision implicitly prohibits any one co-owner from dealing with the mark in a manner that destroys or diminishes the rights of the other without lawful consent. In this dispute, the Court found that joint ownership was not merely alleged but expressly admitted in contractual documents and legal notices. Despite this, the trademark was registered and later assigned without Mandeep Singh’s participation, consent, or receipt of consideration. The Court held that such unilateral conduct is legally incompatible with Section 24, because the statute treats joint proprietors as co-equal holders of the mark, none of whom may act as if the property belongs to them alone.

Section 57(2), Trademarks Act, 1999 — Rectification and Cancellation of the Register

Section 57(2) empowers the High Court to cancel or vary a trademark registration when any entry has been wrongly made or wrongly remains on the register. The Court applied this provision as the central statutory foundation of the petitioner’s case. Since the registration stood solely in the name of Respondent No.1 despite admitted joint ownership, the entry on the register misrepresented the true proprietary position. Such an entry is precisely the type of defect Section 57(2) is designed to cure. The petitioner’s rectification proceedings therefore rested on the principle that a register which excludes a lawful co-owner is not merely procedurally irregular but substantively incorrect, warranting judicial intervention.

Section 45, Trademarks Act, 1999 — Registration of Assignments and Transmissions

Section 45 governs the registration of assignments of trademarks and requires that assignments reflect lawful transfer of proprietary interest. The assignment of the “INSTANT BOLLYWOOD” trademarks to Times Internet Inc. was executed without the petitioner’s consent and without recognizing his 50% ownership. Because Respondent No.1 could not legally assign more rights than he himself possessed, the Court treated the assignment as legally questionable. The failure to recognize the petitioner’s proprietary interest meant that the assignment recorded under Section 45 did not represent a valid transmission of full title and was therefore susceptible to being set aside once the rectification proceedings are finally decided.

Conclusion

The Delhi High Court’s order in Mandeep Singh v. Shabir Momin & Ors. is an important reminder of how courts deal with modern disputes involving shared ownership of intellectual property. The Court made it clear that when a trademark is jointly owned, one party cannot quietly register it in their own name or transfer it to someone else without the knowledge and consent of the other owner. Even if one party is given managerial control under an agreement, ownership rights cannot be taken away through backdoor methods.

At the same time, the Court strongly criticised the petitioner for not being fully honest and transparent with the Court. It clearly showed that hiding or suppressing important facts will not be taken lightly and will result in serious consequences, such as heavy costs. However, the Court also recognised that procedural mistakes should not completely destroy genuine ownership rights. By ordering the parties to maintain the existing situation until the case is finally decided, the Court protected the petitioner’s trademark rights while the dispute is still pending.

The decision reflects a fair and practical approach. It protects the persons actual claim on his intellectual property rights, discourages dishonest conduct, and upholds the integrity of the judicial process. As digital businesses and brand partnerships become more common, this order is likely to guide future courts in resolving conflicts where contracts, fairness, and trademark law intersect.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q1. What was the main legal dispute in Mandeep Singh v. Shabir Momin & Ors.?

Ans. The dispute centred on whether trademarks jointly owned under a brand management agreement could be unilaterally registered and assigned by one party without the consent of the other joint owner.

Q2. Why did the Court treat the issue of joint ownership as central to the case?

Ans. Because the 2019 agreement and subsequent legal notices clearly acknowledged a 50:50 ownership, making unilateral trademark registrations legally questionable from the outset.

Q3. Can managerial control over a brand override trademark ownership right?

Ans. No. The Court clarified that managerial or operational control does not cancel or dilute ownership rights unless expressly and lawfully transferred with consent and consideration.

Q4. Why was Times Internet Inc. impleaded as a party even though the dispute began between the original contracting parties?

Ans. Because any decision on rectification or interim relief would directly affect the validity of the trademark assignment claimed by Times Internet Inc., making it a necessary party for complete adjudication.

Q5. How did the Court view the petitioner’s failure to disclose prior knowledge of the trademark registrations?

Ans. The Court held that non-disclosure of material facts amounted to suppression and warranted judicial censure, including the imposition of heavy costs.

Q6. If the petitioner suppressed facts, why did the Court still grant interim protection?

Ans. Because suppression of facts, though serious, does not automatically extinguish admitted substantive rights especially when ownership is contractually acknowledged by the opposing parties themselves.

Q7. Does this judgment suggest that courts will always overlook procedural misconduct in IP cases?

Ans. No. The Court penalised the misconduct through costs, showing that while rights may be protected, dishonesty will still attract serious consequences.

Q8. What role did Section 57(2) of the Trade Marks Act play in the proceedings?

Ans. It provided the legal basis for seeking cancellation or rectification of trademark registrations that were allegedly wrongly granted or continued in one party’s name.

Q9. What does this case reveal about trademark disputes in digital and influencer-driven businesses?

Ans. It highlights how personal goodwill, public association, and digital presence complicate ownership disputes, especially when contracts separate management from ownership.

Q10. What broader legal principle can be drawn from this decision?

Ans. That courts will strive to balance equity and legality protecting genuine intellectual property rights while ensuring that the judicial process is not abused through suppression or strategic conduct.