Delhi High Court slaps ₹20 lakh costs on Instant Bollywood founder in trademark dispute

The Delhi High Court has imposed costs amounting to ₹20 lakh on Mandeep Singh, founder of the digital entertainment platform Instant Bollywood, after finding that he failed to disclose material facts in a trademark dispute involving the brand.

The order was passed by Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora in a set of four petitions filed by Singh, each attracting costs of ₹5 lakh. The Court directed that the total amount be paid to the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee within two weeks.

Also read: Google honours John Cena’s WWE retirement with ‘You Can’t See Me’ search easter egg

The dispute centres on the “Instant Bollywood” device mark, registered under multiple classes relating to print, advertising, telecommunications and entertainment services. Singh has maintained that he began operating under the Instant Bollywood brand in 2012 and has used the device mark since 2016, building a substantial digital and social media presence.

In 2019, Singh entered into an agreement with One Digital Entertainment Pte Ltd (ODE) for the brand’s management and expansion. The agreement recorded joint ownership of the intellectual property in equal shares. The arrangement was terminated in August 2025, following which Singh alleged that ODE’s managing director, Shabir Momin, had independently secured trademark registrations for the brand in his own name without Singh’s consent.

During the proceedings, Times Internet Inc sought to be added as a party, claiming that the trademarks had been assigned to it through an agreement dated October 24, 2025. The Court allowed the application, noting that Singh was aware of Times Internet Inc’s assertion of rights and that the company was both a necessary and proper party to the case.

Also read: SBI names Ravi Ranjan as Managing Director with effect from December 15

On an initial assessment, the Court acknowledged that Singh’s 50 per cent ownership in the Instant Bollywood brand was expressly recognised in the 2019 agreement relied upon by the respondents. The Court also observed that Singh was neither a signatory to the alleged assignment documents nor a recipient of any consideration, raising questions that the respondents would need to address.

To safeguard Singh’s admitted interest, the Court directed that the existing position be maintained with respect to the October 2025 assignment and restrained the creation of any third-party rights in the disputed trademarks.

Despite granting interim protection, the Court accepted objections raised by Times Internet Inc regarding Singh’s failure to disclose relevant information. The Court found that documents on record indicated Singh was aware of the trademark registrations as early as 2022, and that this information ought to have been disclosed at the time of filing the petitions.

While declining to dismiss the injunction applications outright, the Court held that the omission amounted to suppression of material facts, warranting the imposition of costs. Accordingly, Singh was directed to deposit ₹20 lakh with the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee within two weeks.

The matter is scheduled to be heard next in May 2026.