Delhi High Court Restrains YouTube Loan Settlement Channels From Using IDFC First Bank's Marks

The Delhi High Court on 24 August restrained individuals and entities operating YouTube channels including “Settlement Guru”, “AHK Tips”, “Expert Loan Settlement Advice”, “Kunal Kumar Tutorial” and “Loan Wala Bishu” from using IDFC First Bank's registered trademarks and fabricated settlement letters bearing the Bank's logo.

Justice Jyoti Singh was hearing an application filed by IDFC First Bank seeking an interim injunction against the operators of these channels. The Bench held:

“Prima facie, Defendants No. 1 to 6, none of whom have any authorisation from or appointment or engagement with the Plaintiff in any capacity, are operating social media channels and handles... whereon they publicly hold out that they are in a position to procure settlements of loans sanctioned and advanced by Plaintiff at a steep discount compared to contractual instalments and interest. To further their illegal pursuits, Defendants No. 1 to 6 are prominently displaying the registered mark in the titles, descriptions, tags and graphic overlays of their videos and are also exhibiting purported one-time settlement letters carrying the corporate logo, stylized font and letter heads of the Plaintiff.”

IDFC First Bank told the Court that the defendants offered to help its borrowers “settle” their loans, often claiming that settlements could be secured at discounts of 70 to 80% of the outstanding amount.

The Bank alleged that the channels induced its customers to default on their EMIs by falsely claiming that repayment was unnecessary and then offered to negotiate settlements on their behalf. It said the defendants had no authorisation to act as its agents or representatives.

It further alleged that several channels displayed fabricated “one-time settlement letters” bearing its corporate logo, stylised font and letterhead, creating an impression that the defendants had an official arrangement with the Bank to negotiate loan settlements.

The Court found that the Bank had made out a strong prima facie case and held that the use of its registered marks was likely to lead the public to believe that the defendants' services were authorised or connected with the Bank. It observed:

“Such use of the registered marks of the Plaintiff in the course of trade in relation to services closely allied to banking, is likely to lead members of the public to believe that the services offered by Defendants No.1 to 6 are authorised or sponsored by or otherwise connected with Plaintiff and prima facie infringes Plaintiff's registered marks.”

The Bench also noted that continued availability of the impugned content could cause continuing injury to the Bank's goodwill and reputation. It held:

“Continued availability of the impugned content on the platforms provided by Defendants No. 7 and 8 is bound to cause escalating and continuing injury to the goodwill and reputation of the Plaintiff, the extent whereof is incapable of being computed in monetary terms, since it entails erosion of public trust, dissuasion of prospective borrowers and a consequent impact on the asset quality of Plaintiff.”

Accordingly, the High Court restrained the defendants from inducing the Bank's customers to breach their loan agreements and from using the Bank's registered trademark or any deceptively similar mark in their videos, posts, settlement letters or promotional material.

The matter is next listed for hearing in January 2027.