Delhi High Court Bars Anonymous Parties From Using JCB Branding Over Alleged False Arrest Claims

The Delhi High Court on 15 September restrained anonymous parties allegedly linked to former JCB dealer Krishna Auto Riders Private Limited (KARPL) from using JCB's name, trademarks, logos and other brand identifiers in a manner suggesting an affiliation with the company.

A Bench of Justice Jyoti Singh also directed Google and Meta to take down videos and Instagram reels allegedly claiming that two JCB India officers had been arrested. She observed:

“The defendants are also restrained till the next date of hearing from using the name, marks, logos, insignia or other brand identifiers of JCB in a manner that suggests or portrays any connection, affiliation or association with Plaintiff No. 1.”

JCB India, which manufactures and sells construction and earthmoving equipment, told the Court that the “JCB” name, its associated logos, insignia, trade dress and other brand identifiers constitute valuable intellectual property assets built over decades.

It appointed KARPL as its non-exclusive authorised dealer for parts of Chhattisgarh in 2017. The arrangement allowed KARPL to represent itself as an authorised dealer and use JCB's trademarks, trade names, logos and signage for that purpose.

The company submitted that KARPL's authority to use the JCB marks remained derivative and strictly tied to the dealership. It said the arrangement conferred no independent or perpetual rights in the JCB marks.

The dealership expired at the end of 2024. After KARPL acknowledged owing JCB around Rs. 2.10 crore, the parties entered into a one-year extension to wind down the business. The extension expressly recorded that the parties would not renew the dealership further.

JCB confirmed the end of the arrangement in October 2025. A KARPL director subsequently wrote to JCB's UK parent alleging that someone had inserted the non-renewal clause without consent. JCB submitted that the director did not allege forgery at that stage and raised the allegation only later.

KARPL approached the Court seeking continuation of the dealership but did not secure interim relief. JCB separately sought to restrain KARPL from continuing to use its trademarks and branding after the dealership ended. The dispute is now before an arbitrator.

Around the same period, a KARPL director lodged a police complaint in Chhattisgarh against JCB's officers in connection with the dealership dispute. The complaint eventually led to an FIR against two JCB officers, who are the second and third plaintiffs. JCB submitted that the police have not arrested either officer or taken any other coercive action against them.

Videos and Instagram reels subsequently began circulating, allegedly claiming that the officers had been arrested and presenting the allegations in the FIR as established facts. JCB identified a YouTube channel, an Instagram account named “@infoofjcb” and ten Instagram reels that allegedly used the JCB name and brand identity alongside the disputed content.

JCB argued that KARPL derived its authority to use the JCB name solely from the dealership agreements. Those agreements recognised JCB's proprietary rights in its trademarks, logos and goodwill. It stated that KARPL therefore had no continuing right to use or trade on the JCB identity after the dealership ended.

Further, the company contended that anonymous online accounts allegedly using its branding at KARPL's instance to circulate misleading content required restraint to prevent irreversible injury to its goodwill and dilution of its trademarks.

The Court found that JCB had established a prima facie case for an ex parte ad interim injunction. It also found the balance of convenience in JCB's favour and held that withholding relief could cause irreparable harm.

It restrained the defendants from publishing the impugned videos and from using JCB's name, marks, logos, insignia or other brand identifiers in a manner suggesting or portraying any connection, affiliation or association with JCB.

The Bench directed Google to take down the identified YouTube URLs and Meta to remove the identified Instagram content within 36 hours. It also directed both platforms to provide JCB with subscriber and IP log details within four weeks through a password-protected document. Google and Meta must file compliance affidavits within six weeks.

The Joint Registrar will next hear the matter on 6 October 2026, while the High Court will hear it on 18 January 2027.