Delhi High Court Finds Mehra Brothers In Breach Of Settlement Concerning SUPERON Trademark

The Delhi High Court has found that brothers Sanjay Mehra and Sharad Mehra breached the court-recorded Terms of Settlement (family settlement) governing the “SUPERON” trademark, holding them guilty of wilful disobedience of the agreed intellectual property and territorial restrictions.

The findings came on cross-contempt petitions filed by both sides, each accusing the other of violating the settlement. Consequently, it directed both of them to comply with the requirements of the settlement. 

Justice Sachin Datta, in a judgment dated March 30, 2026, said both parties violated the family settlement executed on April 27, 2023, which regulated the division and use of trademark rights after the demerger of their parent company, Superon Schweisstechnik India Ltd. 

“The legal position is well settled that use of a mark on a website and/or on social media handles accessible from India, tantamounts to use of the mark in India,” the Court said.

Under the settlement, Sanjay Mehra was granted exclusive rights to use the “SUPERON” trademark in India, while Sharad Mehra was allowed to use the mark only outside India for export business.

The TOS also barred any direct or indirect interlinking of brands such as SUPERON, STANVAC and STARBLAZE across websites, social media, advertisements, and other materials.

The court found that Sharad Mehra used the SUPERON mark on websites and social media platforms accessible in India and displayed it on hoardings in India. It held that such use amounted to use of the trademark in India and violated the territorial restriction.

Rejecting reliance on export-related exceptions, the Court held that unrestricted online access would defeat the settlement. It said Sharad Mehra must geo-block such platforms to prevent access from India or refrain from such use altogether.

The Court also held that Sanjay Mehra violated the settlement by interlinking SUPERON with STANVAC on physical hoardings and other materials. It rejected his contention that the restriction applied only to digital platforms and held that the bar on interlinking applies to both physical and electronic use.

“The width of the expression 'either directly or indirectly' cannot be curtailed,” the court said.

The court reiterated that neither party can use the website “superonindia.com” in view of the settlement.

It directed compliance with the settlement, including geo-blocking where required and removal of branding that violates the agreed terms.

“In the event of non-compliance by either party, this Court shall be constrained to take appropriate action for committing wilful disobedience of the stipulations of the TOS,” the Court said.

The matter is listed for further consideration on April 30, 2026.