Delhi HC Restrains Law Prep From Misusing 'LegalEdge' Mark, Orders Take Down AI Defamatory Content

The Delhi High Court has recently granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favour of edtech platform Toprankers, restraining rival CLAT coaching platform Law Prep Tutorial and others from publishing or disseminating defamatory and disparaging content and from unauthorised use of the trademark “LegalEdge.”

The court also restrained the use of AI-generated or morphed content involving this year's CLAT topper's name, image, and likeness.

A Bench of Justice Tushar Rao Gedela observed that the content circulated by the defendants, including videos, blogs and social media posts, prima facie appeared to be aimed at bringing disrepute to the goodwill and reputation of the plaintiffs.

The Court said, “Though it appears to be a case of acrimonious professional rivalry between plaintiff nos.1 and 2 on one hand and the defendant nos.1 and 2 on the other, however, indulging in such statements which tend to lower the image of a rival, in such circumstances, cannot be countenanced.”

Toprankers, an educational company providing offline and online coaching for competitive exams, approached the Court alleging that following the declaration of CLAT 2026 results, the defendants sought to falsely project the AIR 1 holder (plaintiff no. 3) as their student.

It further alleged that the defendants published content accusing it of fraud, unethical conduct and misleading practices, and used AI-generated and morphed material along with its registered trademark “LegalEdge” to portray it negatively.

Upon examining the material on record, the Court noted that the defendants had portrayed the plaintiffs and the student as part of an alleged “evil design,” which did not appear to be justified at this stage of the proceedings.

The Court also took note of the involvement of the CLAT 2026 topper, observing that she appeared to have been unnecessarily drawn into the dispute, describing her situation as akin to that of a “pawn.”

However, the Court clarified that its findings were not based on personality rights. It observed:

“In case any and every success, or a milestone achieved, is held to be sufficient to be raised to the level of a 'personality right', it would lead to absurdity and incongruity. If such interpretation is carried forward, then every aspirant, candidate, student, citizen of this country, who achieves or is declared as a top ranker in every stage of examination, would be entitled to protection of their personality rights.”

On the issue of trademark use, the court held:

“The reference by the defendant nos.1 and 2 to the plaintiff nos. 1 and 2 and use of the trademark “LegalEdge” in their blog, posts, video reels, that too, without permission, is a clear unauthorized, unpermitted use of such trademarks, which will constitute infringement. The statements appear to be made wilfully to bring disrepute to the goodwill, reputation and standing of the plaintiff nos.1 and 2 and would constitute disparagement. It would be appropriate, therefore, to pass necessary orders protecting the rights of the plaintiffs."

Having found the material on record to warrant protection, the court restrained the defendants from publishing or disseminating defamatory or disparaging content across digital platforms.

The court further barred the defendants from publishing any content that targets or tarnishes the registered “LegalEdge” mark.

It also restrained the defendants from using the name, image, or likeness of the AIR 1 holder, including through AI-generated or morphed content.

Google and Meta were directed to disable access to or remove the identified defamatory content within 72 hours of the uploading of the order.

The court directed the defendants to file their reply within four weeks and ordered that the plaint be registered as a suit.

For Plaintiffs: Senior Advocate J. Sai Deepak, with Advocates Ankur Khandelwal, Chirag Sharma, Nikhil Saurabh and Sidhh.