Delhi HC Directs IndiaMart To Take Down MJ Talk Tools Listings Over Alleged Copying Of SpeechGear's Products

The Delhi High Court has recently directed IndiaMart to take down specified listings of MJ Talk Tools before the next date of hearing.

The direction came in a suit filed by SpeechGears India Pvt Ltd, which alleges infringement of its copyrights, trade dress and the shape of tools used in kits designed for children with autism and speech impairment.

Justice Tushar Rao Gedela passed the order on May 29 while hearing an application seeking ex-parte ad-interim relief.

"The images of the defendant's products demonstrate that the shape of the tools provided by it in its kit are identical if not deceptively similar to those of the plaintiff. The matter referred to in the Brochure of the defendants' products too appears to be copied or lifted from the brochure of the plaintiff's products. Most of such literature is an ad verbatim copy. This cannot be mere coincidence," the Court observed.

The Court was hearing a suit filed by SpeechGears India Pvt Ltd against MJ Talk Tools and others, including IndiaMart. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants had copied the shape of its tools. It also alleged infringement of the trade dress of its products and copying of material contained in its brochures.

The plaintiff's counsel took the Court through portions of the plaint and product comparisons. She contended that the defendants had "completely copy and imitate" the plaintiff's tool kit and tools. The plaintiff also contended that two certificates displayed by the defendants were found to be fake after verification through the websites of the issuing organisations.

According to the plaintiff, it obtained a fresh brochure of the defendants in May 2026. It contended that the last page carried the same IS certificate number as that of the plaintiff. The plaintiff further contended that a welcome note authored by it had been copied in the defendants' brochure.

"What is more intriguing and gives away the act of infringement by the defendant, is the ISI registration number, which was allotted to the plaintiff, and has also been copied “as it is” on the brochure of the defendant. This Registration number can surely not belong to two different entities. ," the Court observed.

The Court, however, declined to grant broader ex-parte ad-interim relief at this stage. It observed that the plaintiff had not satisfactorily explained the steps taken after issuing a cease-and-desist notice about one-and-a-half years earlier.

"Ordinarily, this Court would have granted certain ex-parte ad interim reliefs but for the fact that the plaintiff has not been able to satisfactorily explain as to what steps were taken by it after having issued the cease and desist notice almost 1 and ½ years back," the Court held.

Having regard to the material placed before it, the Court directed IndiaMart to take down or de-list the specified URLs before the next date of hearing.

The matter has been listed before the Vacation Bench on June 22, 2026.