Delhi HC Restrains Flipkart From Listing Pirated Bharati Bhawan Books; Ad-Interim Injunction against 17 Sellers

The Delhi High Court has directed Flipkart to refrain from listing counterfeit or pirated copies of Bharati Bhawan's educational books while granting an ex parte ad interim injunction against 17 online sellers.

The 80-year-old publishing house approached the court after discovering that its most popular academic titles, authored by renowned specialists like Dr. H.C. Verma and Dr. R.S. Aggarwal, were being sold as pirated counterfeits on the platform.

Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, on March 27, 2026, observed that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie strong case in its favour. "The reproduction without authorisation of the owner of the copyrighted works, the essential arrangement of the elements and placement of the words and letters not only on the cover page but inside as well are clear pointers of counterfeit products. On a careful examination it is also observed that the manner in which the names of the authors, the style and font used for the course Subject, the placement of the logo on top right corner and the other design in the centre of the books etc also indicate illegal adoption and unauthorised use of the logo and the trade dress as well,” the bench noted.

The court found that upon visual inspection, the infringing products were of substandard quality with the quality of paper used for printing the copyrighted material being poor; the adhesive used was also of poor quality and sheets of paper could be seen separating at certain places. None of the counterfeit copies carried the authenticating 3D hologram sticker used by the publisher.

Bharati Bhawan submitted that it is a leading educational publisher established in 1943, with over a thousand titles including “Concepts of Physics” and “Mathematics.”

It further stated that it uses a unique 3D security sticker made using specialised Swedish technology, comprising three layers that exhibit movement upon tilting to help consumers identify genuine copies.

On the absence of such markers, the court observed, “One remarkable difference was with respect to the missing Hologram referred to by the plaintiff in its plaint. None of the infringing products had a hologram at all. Though, the note in white colour print in small font at the bottom of the cover page on black background mentioned hologram sticker for genuineness of the product, yet astonishingly did not have the hologram anywhere on the infringing product at all.”

“The two products were visually checked by this Court. Not only visual similarity but deceptive visual similarity to the extent that the distinction was not discernible to the Court was noted. However, what was found on such inspection was that the infringing products were of substandard and poor quality with the quality of paper used for printing the copyrighted material was substandard; the adhesive used also of a poor quality and one could observe the sheets of paper separating at certain places. However, one remarkable difference was with respect to the missing Hologram referred to by the plaintiff in its plaint,” the bench added.

In its directions, the Court restrained 17 sellers from reproducing, printing, manufacturing, distributing, or selling pirated versions of the plaintiff's works within India and directed Flipkart to refrain from listing any infringing copies of the subject works offered by these sellers or any other third party engaged in such infringement.

The court also allowed the publisher to approach the Joint Registrar to seek impleadment of additional infringers if further such listings are discovered.